Bombay High Court
Shri Sanjukta Kumar Behera vs The Central Administrative ... on 20 August, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
1 WP5121.5347.14.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.5121/2014
Shri Sanjukta Kumar Behera,
aged about 54 years, Occ.-Service,
R/o GG Complex, Flat No.B/G1,
Seminary Hills, Nagpur. .....PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. The Central Administrative Tribunal,
Mumbai, Camp at Nagpur, GG Complex,
Seminary Hills, Near TV Tower,
Nagpur through Member.
2. The Union of India, through Secretary,
Ministry of Labour and Employment,
Shram Shakti Bhavan, Rafi Marg,
New Delhi - 110 001.
3. Chairman, Central board of Workers
Education, 7/10, Room No.21, 22,
Jam Nagar House, Mansingh Road,
New Delhi - 110 001.
4. Central Board of Workers Education,
North Ambazari Road, Nagpur.
5. The Additional Director,
Central Board of Workers Education,
North Ambazari Road, Nagpur.
6. Bimal Sarkar s/o Late Narendrachandra
Sarkar.
(Deleted vide Court's order
dated 20.08.2016) ...RESPONDENTS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. Gauri Venkatraman, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. Ambarish Joshi, Standing Counsel for Union of India.
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2016 00:18:39 :::
2 WP5121.5347.14.odt
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.5347/2014
1. The Union of India, through Secretary,
Ministry of Labour and Employment,
Shram Shakti Bhavan, Rafi Marg,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Chairman, Central board of Workers
Education, 7/10, Room No.21, 22,
Jam Nagar House, Mansingh Road,
New Delhi - 110 011.
3. The Director, Central Board of
Workers Education, North Ambazari Road,
Nagpur - 400 033.
4. The Additional Director,
Central Board of Workers Education,
North Ambazari Road, Nagpur. ...PETITIONERS
...V E R S U S...
1. Shri Sanjukta Kumar Behera,
aged about 54 years, Occ.-Service,
Central Board of Workes Education,
North Ambazari Road, Nagpur,
r/o CGO Complex, Flat No.B-2/G1,
Seminary Hills, Nagpur.
2. Bimal Sarkar s/o Late Narendrachandra
Sarkar.
(Deleted vide Court's order
dated 20.08.2016) ...RESPONDENTS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Ambarish Joshi, Standing Counsel for petitioners.
Mrs. Gauri Venkatraman, Advocate for respondent no.1.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- B. R. GAVAI & V. M. DESHPAND E, JJ.
DATED :- AUGUST 20, 2016
3 WP5121.5347.14.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : B. R. Gavai, J.)
1. Learned counsel for petitioner seeks leave to delete name
of respondent no.6 in Writ Petition No.5121/2014. Learned Standing
Counsel for the Union of India also seeks leave to delete name of
respondent no.2 in Writ Petition No.5347/2014.
Leave granted as prayed for.
2. Both these writ petitions challenge order dated
27.05.2014 in Original Application No.2154/2008. In Writ Petition
No.5121/2014 the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'Original
Applicant') had approached the learned tribunal contending therein
that though he was eligible to be promoted as an Accounts Officer,
the said promotion was unduly denied to him. It was a specific
contention of the original applicant that the post of the Accounts
Officer fell vacant from 2002. It was further the contention of the
Original Applicant that at that time neither the Original Applicant
nor one Mr. Bimal Sarkar i.e. respondent no.5 in the Original
Application were entitled to the promotion as Accounts Officer and
as such the said post was filled in by deputing one Mr. K. R. BNagar
in the said post. It was further contended that the said Mr. Nagar
left in the year 2004. However even thereafter no steps were taken
4 WP5121.5347.14.odt
to fill in the said post by promotion. It is further his case that on
24.04.2006, one Mr. A. K. T. Bagde was appointed on the said post
on deputation for one year. Subsequently, Mr. Bagade was relieved
on 23.07.2008 and the respondent no.5 in Original Application was
handed over the charge of the post of Accounts Officer. The Original
Applicant, feeling aggrieved, made a representation to the
authorities but since there was no response from the authorities, the
Original Application came to be filed on 30.10.2008. The Tribunal
vide order dated 21.01.2011 though refused to interfere with the
promotion granted to respondent no.5 in the Original Application,
directed that the same should be subject to the final outcome of the
Original Application.
3. It was the case of the Original Applicant before the
learned tribunal was that since the departmental enquiry was
pending against him in which he was exonerated, the DPC ought to
have been constituted and the report of the DPC insofar as the
Original Applicant is concerned, ought to have been kept in a sealed
cover. The learned tribunal found that the same was not done in the
DPC held on 13.01.2011 and as such the respondent authorities had
violated the procedure prescribed in the instructions issued by the
5 WP5121.5347.14.odt
DoP&T. In that view of the matter, the learned tribunal issued the
following directions:
"7. On the basis of above analysis, we come to
the conclusion that this O.A. deserves to be allowed
partly. We quash the DPC held on 13.01.2011 and
direct that the respondents shall convene a DPC meeting
to prepare year wise panel for the post of Accounts
Officer in accordance with DoP&T instructions starting
from year 2008 in which the post fell vacant after Sh.
Bagde's departure. All the eligible officers falling within
the zone of consideration would be considered for such
promotion. Whosoever is found fit for promotion in the
earliest year, shall be promoted notionally from that
vacancy year with consequential benefit of seniority and
pay fixation but no back wages. No costs."
It can thus be seen that the directions issued by the
learned tribunal are in consonance and in conformity with paragraph
6.4.1 of the instructions issued by the Department of Personnel and
Training of the Union of India.
4. It can thus be seen that no prejudice of whatsoever nature
can be said to have been caused either to the Union of India or to the
petitioner in Writ Petition No.5121/2014. In any case, the learned
tribunal has further held that the promotions which were to be given
6 WP5121.5347.14.odt
as per the recommendations of the DPC were to be given only
notionally from the date of the vacancy with consequential benefits
of seniority and pay fixation. The learned tribunal had however
denied the claim of the back wages. As such it cannot be said that
any prejudice is caused to the Union of India.
5. In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason for
interfering in the well reasoned order passed by the learned tribunal.
The writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.
(V. M. Deshpande,J.) (B. R. Gavai,J.)
kahale
7 WP5121.5347.14.odt
CERTIFICATE
I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true and
correct copy of original signed Judgment/Order.
Uploaded by: Y. A. Kahale. Uploaded On:23.08.2016
