S.C. Gupta vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr.
2007 Latest Caselaw 413 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. Rule DB. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.

2. This writ petition challenges the order dated 16th September, 2003 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short 'CAT'), Principle Bench, New Delhi passed in OA No. 468/2003. The said OA was filed praying for the following reliefs:

8.1 That the Respondent No. 2 be directed to count the applicant's continuous uninterrupted officiation in the post of Jr. Investigator w.e.f. 26.4.1971 to 19.9.1976 and Sr. Investigator w.e.f. 20.9.1976 to 26.6.1979 and Technical Assistant w.e.f. 26.6.1979 to 3.3.1981 as regular for purpose of fixation of pay, protection of pay scale, determining Seniority and Promotion to the higher grade as has been done in the case of other employees including Publicity Officers. The impugned orders which have adversely affected the interest of the applicant, being senior enough either may be withdrawn by respondent No. 2 or the applicant may be treated on the same footings as that of Publicity Officers but his eligibility/seniority should not be affected adversely.

8.2 That the Respondent No. 2 be directed to protect the pay scale of Rs.550-25-750-EB-30-900 held by the applicant in the post of Sr. Investigator prior to his appointment as Tech. Assistant in the scale of Rs.500-20-700-EB-25-900 w.e.f. 26.6.1979.

8.3 That in keeping in view the pay scale of Rs.550-900 earlier held by the applicant and that in order to get the applicant's pay fixed under FR 22/C, on promotion to the post of Dy. Supdt., the respondent No. 2 be directed to revise the pay scale of Rs.550-20-650-EB-25-750 to a higher scale of Rs.650-30-740-35-EB-880-EB-40-960 w.e.f. 4.3.1981 so that the recoveries made by the respondent No. 2 from his salary are recouped; and his pay is enhanced and fixed under FR 22/C.

8.3 That in order to get the applicant's pay fixed under FR-22/C, on promotion to the post of Dy. Supdt., the Respondent No. 2 be directed to revise the Pay Scale of Rs.550-20-650-EB-25-750 to Rs.550-25-750-EB-30-900 as recommended by DPC or to a higher scale of Rs.650-30-740-35-EB-880-EB-40-960 w.e.f. 04/03/1981 so that the recoveries made by the Respondent No. 2 from his salary are recouped and his pay is enhanced and fixed under FR-22/C.

8.4 That Respondent No. 2 be directed to correctly fix inter-se-seniority of the applicant with the Publicity Officer mentioned here in above in the application as the applicant was confirmed in the Pay Scale of Rs.550-20-650-EB-25-750 as Dy. Supdt. and the Publicity Officers were confirmed in the lower Pay Scale of Rs.470-15-530-EB-20-650-EB-25-750.

8.5 That the respondent be directed to promote the applicant to the post of Assistant Director Gr. I on regular basis from a date in 1979 or in 1980 when the post of Assistant Director Gr.I had fallen vacant and had been filled up on deputation basis.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that upon his promotion to the post of Dy. Superintendent in the office of the respondent No. 2 i.e. Development Commissioner (Handlooms), his pay was not protected and upon promotion it was reduced.

4. The facts of the present case are that the Petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Investigator on adhoc basis in the pay scale of Rs.210-425 (Revised scale of Rs.425-700) on 26.04.1971. On 01.01.1975 he was appointed as Senior Investigator on deputation basis in the Commissioner of Inquiry on Large Industry Houses (CILIH) in the basic pay scale of Rs.550-900. He continued to work in the CILIH when he was relieved from the said post on winding up of CILIH and was appointed to the post of Technical Assistant on temporary basis in the scale of Rs.500-900. Subsequently, he was appointed Deputy Superintendent with effect from 4.03.1981 in the scale of Rs.550-750 as he was not qualified to hold the post of Technical Assistant but was inducted in service to avoid any hardship to him after winding up of CILIH.

5. After the amendments of the Rules, the Petitioner was promoted to the post of Office Superintendent on adhoc basis with effect from 18.06.1984 and was given regular promotion with effect from 13.05.1988. The representation of the Petitioner to consider his promotion on regular basis with effect from 18.06.1984 was turned down. The Petitioner has since retired on 30.04.2005. While in service he filed O.A. No. 468/2003 seeking continuous and uninterrupted service in the post of Junior Investigator with effect from 26.04.1971 to 19.09.1976 and Senior Investigator with effect from 20.09.1976 to 26.06.1979 and Technical Assistant with effect from 26.06.1979 to 03.03.1981 on regular basis for the purposes of fixation of pay and also determining his seniority and promotion to the higher grade and also sought protection of his pay in the scale of Rs.550-25-750-EB-30-900 in which he was placed as Senior Investigator prior to his appointment as Technical Assistant in the scale of Rs.500-20-700-EB-25-900 with effect from 26.06.1979. The said O.A. was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal dated 16th September, 2003, the Petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition.

6. The respondent took a plea that CILIH where the petitioner has served for about eight years on ad hoc basis from 26.04.1971 to 26.6.1979 on the post of Jr. Investigator and Sr. Investigator, was itself a temporary organisation which existed for eight years also. The organisation was wound up and all its employees including the petitioner faced the termination of services. It was only in order to mitigate the hardship of the temporary employees including the petitioner that letter dated 21st April, 1979 regarding deployment/absorption of retrenched employees in regular Government establishments was issued. Consequently, the petitioner was given appointment on temporary basis on a vacant post of Technical Assistant in the grade of Rs.500-900/- in the office of the respondent No. 2. The said post was joined by the petitioner on temporary basis on 26th June, 1979. The recruitment rules for the post of Technical Assistant notified on 25th May, 1981 specified the eligibility criteria for the post of Technical Assistant which admittedly the petitioner did not possess. Since the petitioner did not qualify for the post of Technical Assistant he was required to be shifted from the post of Technical Assistant to some other suitable non technical post. This led to the appointment of the petitioner as Dy. Superintendent on 3rd March, 1981 and the recruitment rules for the post of Dy. Superintendent were notified in February, 1982 and the amended recruitment rules provided as follows:

every officer who was holding immediately before the commencement of these rules the post of Deputy Superintendent in the Office of the Development Commissioner for Handlooms (i.e. Office of Respondent No. 2) shall be deemed to have been appointed to the said post and the continuous service of such officer in the said post prior to such commencement shall be taken into account for the purposes of calculating qualifying service for confirmation and promotion to the higher post.

7. The petitioner was confirmed on the said post as per the above rules and was eventually promoted as Office Superintendent w.e.f. 13th May, 1988. The respondent's stand was that the word 'promotion' in the order of 23rd April, 1981 was wrongly mentioned. In fact it was only an order of posting because he had not qualified as a Technical Assistant.

8. The Tribunal in the impugned order has held as follows:

(a) That the petitioner's services were liable to be terminated after abolition of the erstwhile office of CILIH which was a temporary one.

(b) That the petitioner did not possess the necessary qualification for the post of Technical Assistant and his recruitment to that post was not in conformity with the rules notified subsequently.

(c) The petitioner was appointed as Deputy Superintendent and was considered as a regular appointment on that post and has secured subsequent promotions also. From the post of Deputy Superintendent onwards the petitioner was paid according to the existing pay scales applicable to Deputy Superintendent.

(d) The petitioner's grievance regarding promotion to the next higher grade was also misconceived as three Publicity Officers viz. Mr. R.V. Subramanian, Mr. T.R. Batra and Mr. T.P.A. Narayanan completed their eligibility period of five years much earlier than the petitioner and the petitioner became eligible only on 4th March, 1984 after completing three years regular service as Deputy Superintendent.

In view of the above, the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. by the impugned order.

9. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal as the Tribunal has rightly found that the petitioner was a member of temporary organisation and was given regular appointment after the winding up of the said organisation and was thus treated by utmost fairness by the Government by giving him regular appointment. The word 'promotion' mentioned in the order of posting is inconsequential for the petitioner as it has been sufficiently explained and in fact it was only order of posting on selection of the petitioner in the scale of Rs.550-750/- as Deputy Superintendent. We have also noticed the fact that at the time of petitioner's appointment as Deputy Superintendent, no protection of his pay was sought for by the petitioner. The petitioner was also found not be technically qualified to be a Technical Assistant as his appointment has not been demonstrated by the petitioner to be according to the Rules. Besides Mr. R.V. Subramanian, Mr. T.R. Batra and Mr. T.P.A. Narayanan had completed their eligibility period for promotion from the post of Deputy Superintendent much earlier than 5th March, 1984, when the petitioner became eligible for such promotion.

10. The petitioner has given no satisfactory reason why the grievance which according to him arose in 1981 was only sought to be challenged in the CAT in 2003. In our view even apart from the reasons recorded by the CAT which we affirm, these laches should have justified the Tribunal in dismissing the OA of the petitioner. Consequently, no cause for interference with the impugned order is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

11. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.