Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: epfat in Smt. Nasreen B. Siddiqui vs Union Of India Through on 25 March, 2010Matching Fragments
Nasreen B. Siddiqui, Deputy Registrar in Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as EPFAT), applicant herein, has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking to quash and set aside order Annexure A/1 dated 03.03.2010 served on her on 09.03.2010 whereby her request for permanent absorption has been declined. The impugned order Annexure A/1 reads thus:-
I am directed to refer to your letter No.EPFAT/PO/2010/1 dated 2nd February, 2010 on the above mentioned subject and to state that the request of Smt. Nasreen Bano Siddiqui, Deputy Registrar, EPFAT (on deputation) for permanent absorption in the Department has been examined in this Ministry and it is regretted that the same cannot be acceded to since the recruitment rules of the post do not have any provision for absorption.
2. Brief facts as projected in the Application reveal that the applicant is working as Deputy Registrar in EPFAT w.e.f. 01.03.2004 on deputation. She initially came on deputation for a period of three years. The period of deputation was to expire on 01.03.2007. It is the case of the applicant that respondents initiated process of filling up the post and issued circulars in this regard inviting applications from eligible candidates but no application was received in response thereof. In the meantime, on the basis of her performance, the applicants appointment on deputation as Deputy Registrar was extended for 2= years. The applicant made two representations - one for extension of her period of deputation due to the fact that her children, who are pursuing their studies at Air Force Bal Bharti School, New Delhi, may not suffer on account of displacement at the mid academic session, and the other representation was made on 01.09.2009 for permanent absorption as Deputy Registrar in EPFAT. It is the case of the applicant that Presiding Officer of EPFAT made a strong recommendation for absorption of the applicant as also for extension. The then Presiding Officer as also the present Presiding Officer have stated in categorical terms that applicants services are required in the interest of the department.
2. Somehow the matter could not be finalized and meanwhile the month of March has arrived. Inasmuch as the applicant wants to stay only upto 31.03.2010, for variety of reasons, some of which have been mentioned in the order reproduced above, we are of the view that there would be no harm if the applicant stays at the present place of posting upto 31.03.2010 and joins her parent department by 1st April, 2010. Disposed of accordingly.
5. It is on the heels of decision of the O.A. aforesaid that present Original Application, for the reliefs as already indicted above, has been filed. When present Application came up for hearing on 23.03.2010, it was our impression that the applicant had made no averments with regard to seeking her permanent absorption in EPFAT in her earlier OA. It, prima facie, appeared to us that if the said fact was not disclosed, it may be a case where the applicant had suppressed the material facts, inasmuch as, the prayer of the applicant so specifically stated and even recorded in the interim order, was to stay in Delhi up to March, 2010 for the only reason that her repatriation at that stage would adversely affect the education of her children. Since we were not sure, we ordered records of OA No. 2763/2009 to be tagged up with this OA and passed the following order:-
7. What appears from the records of the case is that on 02.07.2009, the applicant was informed that her period of deputation came to an end on 25.09.2009. On 08.09.2009, representation made by the applicant dated 01.09.2009 for permanent absorption as Deputy Registrar was forwarded by the Registrar, EPFAT, which has been declined by the respondents, vide orders dated 03.03.2010, which we have since already reproduced hereinabove.
8. Perusal of the order dated 03.03.2010 would reveal that in the recruitment rules, there is no provision for permanent absorption. Before we may proceed in this case, we would like to mention that perusal of the counter reply filed on behalf of the respondents in OA No. 2763/2009 would reveal that as per DOP&T O.M. dated 25.02.2009, no extension could be considered beyond fifth year. Further, as per direction of DOP&T that the post of Deputy Registrar, EPFAT should be filled by 25.09.2009, second respondent completed the process to fill up the post with the approval of the competent authority, i.e., Labour & Employment Minister. In paragraph 4(vi) of the reply, it is stated that selection for the post held by the applicant has already been made and the incumbent, who has been selected, is unable to join only because this Tribunal had granted stay and she is in waiting. The factum of selection/appointment of Deputy Registrar in EPFAT is reiterated in paragraph 5(b) stating that selection has already been made as per recommendations of the Selection Committee duly constituted under the recruitment rules and approved by the competent authority, and that the newly appointed Deputy Registrar is not able to join the post because of the stay granted by this Tribunal.