Delhi High Court
Sh.Rampat Azad, vs Union Of India & Others on 27 April, 2010
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) No.2479/2010
% Date of Decision: 27.04.2010
Sh.Rampat Azad, .... Petitioner
Through Mr.Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Advocate.
Versus
Union of India & others .... Respondents
Through Ms.D.S.Mahendru & Ms.Jasmine Ahmed,
Advocates for respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Mr.Naresh Kaushik & Ms.Aditi Gupta,
Advocates for UPSC/respondent No.3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported NO
in the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 2nd December, 2008
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New
Delhi in O.A.No.2351 of 2007, titled as „Sh.R.P.Azad v. Union of India
through Secretary (Textiles) & others‟, whereby the Tribunal directed
the respondents to either create promotional avenues or extend to the
petitioner financial upgradation as per the methodology laid down
W P (C.) No. 2479 of 2010 Page 1 of 6
under the Rules and Law, even if Carpet Training Officer (CTO) is a
closed cadre.
The plea of the petitioner is that his channel of promotion was in
the nature of and category of Junior Field Officer (JFO) leading to re-
designated HPO, leading further to Assistance Director, Handicrafts,
leading further to Deputy Director, Handicrafts and finally Regional
Director, Handicrafts. According to the petitioner the Tribunal has failed
to appreciate these facts and has been mislead in the believing that
channel of promotion of the petitioner was from CTO to that of
Assistant Director, Handicrafts and the cadre of CTO was closed.
Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the
memorandum dated 15th July, 1976, order dated 15th February, 1978,
order dated 4th June, 1979 and order dated 16th May, 1997 as well as
order of the Tribunal passed in earlier petition dated 2nd December,
1999 in O.A. No.2921 of 1997, titled as „Sh.R.P.Azad v. Union of India‟
whereby the Tribunal had disposed of the petition of the petitioner
directing the respondents to take prompt steps to consider the
regularization of the petitioner and others similarly situated against the
available regular vacancy of CTOs in accordance with rules and
instructions and consider their cases for promotion subject to
W P (C.) No. 2479 of 2010 Page 2 of 6
availability of vacancies in the promotional channel in accordance with
the rules and instructions as well as judicial pronouncements.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that the order
dated 2nd December, 1999 in O.A. No.2921 of 1997, titled as „Sh.R.P.
Azad v. Union of India‟ was not challenged by the petitioner. Reliance
can also be placed on the communication dated 22nd August, 2000 from
Deputy Director (Admn.-II) to the Secretary, Union Public Service
Commission requesting to take up the matter on priority basis and
expedite the approval for regularizing the incumbents, at an early date,
from the date of their initial appointment since some other JFOs are
also alleged to be left out besides 45 CTOs (erstwhile JFOs) whose case
was sent to UPSC for regularization. This is not disputed that an order
dated 26th June, 2006 was passed whereby the petitioner‟s service as
an erstwhile Junior Field Officer was regularized as CTO who was on ad
hoc service earlier in the pay scale of Rs.5500-175-9000/-. The order
dated 26th June, 2006 is as under:-
"No.15(87)/93-Admin.II-Pt.F.
Government of India
Ministry of Textiles
Office of the Development Commissioner (Handicrafts)
West Block No.VII,
R.K.Puram, New Delhi-110066
Dated: 26.06.2006
W P (C.) No. 2479 of 2010 Page 3 of 6
ORDER
Consequent upon approval of UPSC vide letter
No.F.No.4/23(1)/200-AP-3 dated 3.6.2002 and in
continuation of this office Order No.15(87)/93-Admn.II dated
16.5.197 the ad-hoc services of Shri R.P.Azad, CTO
(erstwhile Junior Field Officer) is regularized w.e.f. their date
of appointment/date of joining in the pay scale of Rs.5500-
9000/-.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Agarwal)
Development Commissioner (Handicrafts)
The Central Pay & Accounts Office,
Office of DC (Handicrafts),
New Delhi"
A contempt petition being C.P. No.126 of 2007 was also filed by
the petitioner for alleged non-compliance of order passed in
O.A.No.2921 of 1997 dated 2nd December, 1999. Pursuant to that the
respondents were directed to pass a speaking order either promoting
the petitioner or declining to do so. It was also held that while declining
to give promotion to the petitioner, the respondents shall give reason for
the same. Pursuant to order dated 6th July, 2007, an order was passed
which was communicated to the petitioner by communication dated
28th September, 2007 holding that for considering for promotion to the
post of Assistant Director (A & C), CTO is the feeder cadre. It was held
that since Carpet Scheme in the rest of India has already been closed
down during the IXth plan in phased manner vide order
No.A.12031/4/98-Admn.-II (Part file) dated 12th April, 2004 under a
policy decision communicated by the Department of Expenditure,
Ministry of Finance, therefore, upon the closure of said Centers, all the
Officials that is CTOs of the Carpet Scheme other than J & K are
declared surplus vide Office Memorandum. It was also intimated any
post in any closed scheme became vacant either on redeployment in
other Organization or on retirement of official, automatically abolished
under such scheme, and therefore, the question of promotion of the
petitioner to the next higher post does not arise at that stage.
This is not disputed that by the order dated 26th June, 2006, the
service of the petitioner who was working on ad hoc basis was
regularized as CTO in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000/- from the date of
his appointment, was not challenged by him.
Before the Tribunal the plea of the petitioner for promotion was
opposed on the ground that CTO Cadre has been closed, and therefore,
the petitioner cannot get promotion which was repelled by the Tribunal
in view of the ratio of the Supreme Court‟s judgment in
„A.Satyanarayana & others v. S.Purushotham & others (2008) 2 SCC (L
& S) 279, holding that right to consideration for promotion is to be
treated as fundamental right, as promotional chance of an employee
cannot be closed forever and the government has to consider removing
stagnation and frustration among the employees. In the circumstances,
the Tribunal directed the respondents to either create promotional
avenues or extend to the petitioner the financial up-gradation as per
methodology laid down under Rules and Law.
In totality of the facts and circumstances, the learned counsel for
the petitioner is unable to make out any illegality, irregularity or such
perversity in the order of the Tribunal which will necessitate any
interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition, in the facts and circumstances is without any
merit, and therefore, it is dismissed.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
APRIL 27, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
„VK‟
