Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. First of all, let us consider the issue regarding the correctness of the judgment rendered by this Tribunal in the case of S.R. Gautam (supra). It may be stated that the main issue, which arose for consideration of the Principal Bench in the case of S.R. Gautam (supra) was whether the service rendered by the applicants from the date of initial deputation to the date of absorption should be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of promotion to the grade of Assistant Director (Systems). It is not in dispute that the applicants in S.R. Gautam (supra) joined the services of the respondents way back in the years from 1988 to 1991 and the grievance raised by them in the said OA was that the service rendered by them from the date of their initial deputation till their subsequent absorption be treated as regular service. Since the said issue mainly relates between the applicants in that OA and the official respondents, as such the persons who were recruited as Assistant Director (Systems) on direct recruit basis were not impleaded as party respondents. Be that as it may, this Tribunal after considering the decision of the Apex Court in the case of K. Madhavan & Another v. Union of India & Others, [(1987) 4 SCC 566] allowed the OA holding that the appointment of the applicants to the post of Programme Assistant/Console Operator on deputation basis will have to be considered as appointment on regular basis. The Tribunal after noticing column 12 of the Recruitment Rules of 1989 for the post of Assistant Director (Systems) which provides eligibility criteria for promotion from the feeder categories of Programme Assistant/Console Operator with 5 years regular service in the grade, on transfer on deputation (including short-term contract) allowed the OA in the following terms:

ii) Declare that the service rendered by the applicants as Programme Assistant/Console Operator from the date of their initial deputation to the date of their absorption is regular service for the purpose of being considered for promotion as Programmer, Group A/Assistant Director System;
iii) Direct the respondents to consider the applicants for promotion as Programmer Group A/Assistant Director, System from the due date and to promote them as such from the said date, if found fit by the DPC/review DPC with all consequential benefits.

4. A copy of the judgment of this Tribunal in OA-2156/2000 has been placed on record as Annexure A-8. Thus, as can be seen from the portion quoted above, it is evident that this Tribunal not only directed the respondents to count the service rendered by the applicants as Programme Assistant/Console Operator from the date of their initial deputation to the date of their absorption as regular service for the purpose of being considered for promotion as Programmer Group A/Assistant Director (Systems) but also directed the respondents to hold review DPC and in case applicants are found fit for promotion by the DPC/review DPC to the said post, they be granted promotion from due date with all consequential benefits.

9. At this stage, it may also be relevant to notice that the cadre of DPA was restructured in the year 1995 and draft Recruitment and Promotion Rules were circulated on 14.09.1995, superseding the earlier Directorate of Income Tax System Programme Assistant/Console Operator Recruitment Rules, 1990, but the said rules were never notified and the private respondents and the applicants in OA-2516/2000, i.e., S.R. Guatuam (supra) continued to be governed by the Recruitment Rules of 1990. In other words, they belong to the cadre of Programme Assistant/Console Operator, which was a feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Assistant Director (Systems) in terms of the Directorate of Income Tax (Systems), Deputy Director/Computer Manager/Assistant Director/System Analyst and Programmer Recruitment Rules, 1989. It may also be relevant to mention here that the Recruitment Rules of 1989 were superseded by the new Rules promulgated on 27.07.2001 and before that date, applicants in the case of S.R. Gautam (supra) had already obtained favorable judgement for their promotion to the post of Assistant Director (Systems) by holding a review DPC from due date with all consequential benefits.