Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Dtp operator in Ram Krishan vs M/O Labour on 27 October, 2016Matching Fragments
By Hon'ble Mr. P.K. Basu Both the O.A. Nos. 2000/2014 and 2001/2014 pertain to the same applicant and the issues are linked. Therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The applicant was initially appointed as Desk Top Publishing (DTP) Operator on consolidated salary of Rs.2500/- p.m. w.e.f. 25.11.1992 in Child Labour Cell, supported by the UNICEF, for a period of six months. The post of DTP Operator was required for the project period only and the post was to be terminated on completion of the project. His service was extended from time to time to work in the Child Labour Cell till 31.01.1994.
3 OA 2000/2014 with OA 2001/2014
3. For appointment of DTP Operator in the project funded by UNICEF, the institute received 19 applications, but interview letters were sent to 5 candidates only. The then Director of the Institute constituted a Selection Committee comprising four members. One of the Committee Member, viz. Dr. K.V.E. Parsad, remarked that "the applications so far received are not suitable for the post. Can we expand our coverage." The then Director replaced Dr. K.V.E Parsad by another member in the Committee. The applicant was then selected as DTP Operator in the project on consolidated salary basis. He was offered the post of DTP Operator in the pay scale of Rs.1400- 2600 vide offer letter dated 25.01.1994. The offer letter made it clear that the post of DTP Operator is temporary, likely to be made permanent and the applicant will be on probation initially for a period of one year w.e.f. the date of his joining the post. He was allotted residential accommodation vide letter dated 05.04.1994. His pay was fixed at Rs.1400/- p.m. Thereafter, on revision of pay scale on the recommendation of the 5th CPC, his pay was fixed in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 vide order dated 30.03.1998 at Rs.5000/- and after adding increment at Rs.5150/- as on 01.01.1997 and Rs.5300/- as on 01.01.1998. As per order dated 19.02.2007, he was granted annual increment w.e.f. 01.01.2007.
"I would propose that Director may appoint Shri Ram Kishan, as DTP Operator against one of the two vacant post of Stenographers Grade-II. The scale of Stenographer Grade-II is Rs.1200-2040 whereas the proposed scale of DTP Operator is Rs.1400-2600. This little variation has to be approved ex-post- facto by the Government of India.
Before the post of Stenographer Grade-II will be technically deemed to be vacant, it is necessary that Director may kindly restore the vacancy as the post has been lying vacant for more than a year and hence stand abolished as per the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure O.M. No. 7(7)-E (Coord.)/93 dated 3.5.93. Director is the competent Authority to restore as per the aforesaid O.M. To sum up, Director may kindly restore the vacancy of Stenographer Grade-II (1200-2040) and appoint Shri Ram Kishan (who was recruited through a duly constituted Selection Committee) as DTP Operator in the scale of Rs.1400-2600 against the restored post. The variation in the pay scale can be approved ex-post-facto by the Government of India."
8. The 1st question to be decided is whether the action of the respondents in issuing order dated 30.12.2011 appointing him as Stenographer/Assistant Grade-II in PB-1 + GP Rs.2400/- w.e.f. 01.01.2012 is valid or not. As has been brought out by the counsel, the Institute clearly violated all norms and procedures initially appointing the applicant as DTP Operator despite the objection of one of the members of the Selection Committee, Dr. Prashad. Moreover, while the vacant post was that of Stenographer/Assistant Grade-II in the scale of Rs.1200-2040. The Institute appointed him as DTP Operator in the scale of Rs.1400-2600. Clearly, the Institute did not have authority to do so and should have obtained prior 7 OA 2000/2014 with OA 2001/2014 permission of Govt. of India in the Ministry of Labour. When in 2001, the Staff Work Management Unit recommended the abolition of post of DTP Operator, then the applicant made a request that he be appointed on another alternative post in any grade. The respondents made a 2nd mistake by again appointing him as Stenographer/Assistant Grade-II vide order dated 30.12.2011 without following any procedure and norms, perhaps out of sympathy for the applicant and that he should not be rendered jobless after about 17 years of service. But the fact remains that the initial appointment itself was illegal.