C.B. Singh vs The Secretary, Ministry Of ...
2012 Latest Caselaw 5733 Del

             THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


%                                         Judgment delivered on: 24.09.2012


+       W.P.(C) 7937/2011


C.B. SINGH                                                  ... Petitioner


                                        versus


THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND ORS
                                  ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner           : Mr Deepak Verma
For the Respondent           : Mr Rajinder Nischal with Mr Asish Nischal

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL


                                 JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 26.07.2011 and

20.09.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench,

New Delhi in O.A. No.2666/2011 and R.A. No.296/2011 whereby the

petitioner's said Original Application and the Review Application have

been rejected.

2. The only point which arises for consideration in this case is as to

whether the petitioner ought to have been considered in the DPC which was

convened in September and October, 2009 for the year 2003, which

considered the select list for that year insofar as regular appointments to the

posts of Assistants in the Central Secretariat Service (CSS) was concerned.

3. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was working as an UDC

in the Central Secretariat Clerical Service (CSCS). He was appointed as an

Assistant on ad-hoc basis w.e.f. 25.03.2004. The petitioner, while working

in the said ad-hoc capacity as an Assistant retired on 31.07.2006. When the

DPC was convened for the select list of Assistants in the year 2003 in

September and October, 2009, the petitioner was not considered by the said

DPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the

convening of the DPC in September and October, 2009, even persons

junior to him have been granted regular appointments as Assistants with

retrospective effect from 01.07.2003, which is prior to the date of

superannuation of the petitioner. Consequently, the learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted, on the strength of a decision of this Court in the case

of Union of India vs. P.G. George : W.P.(C) 4864/2010 decided on

23.07.2010 that since the persons junior to the petitioner have been given

promotion as Assistants on a regular basis w.e.f. 01.07.2003, which is prior

to the date on which the petitioner superannuated (i.e. 31.07.2006), the

petitioner ought to be given notional promotion from 01.07.2003 and be

granted consequential retiral benefits.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also drew our attention to the

orders dated 20.11.2009 whereby 93 persons were appointed as regular

Assistants of the CSS against the select list for the year 2003. The learned

counsel for the petitioner drew our attention specifically to persons shown

at Serial No.20 (Smt. Yashwanti Devi) who had retired voluntarily; Serial

No.81 (Sh. Kamla Ram) who had also retired; and Serial No.90 (Smt.

Sunita Rohella) who had also retired voluntarily. The learned counsel for

the petitioner then drew our attention to the answer received by him on a

query under the Right to Information Act, 2005 wherein the respective

dates of retirement of the said Smt. Yashwanti Devi, Sh. Kamla Ram and

Smt. Sunita Rohella have been set out. As per the said information, Smt.

Yashwanti Devi took voluntary retirement on 04.06.2008; Sh. Kamla Ram

retired on 31.07.2009 and Smt. Sunita Rohella took voluntary retirement on

03.08.2009. The said response dated 05.09.2011 to the RTI query also

indicates the dates when the DPC was held. It is revealed that the DPC was

held on 10th and 11th of September, 2009 and then on 22nd, 23rd and 26th of

October, 2009.

5. From the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has been

successful in demonstrating that when the DPC was convened in

September-October, 2009, the said Smt. Yashwanti Devi, Sh. Kamla Ram

and Smt. Sunita Rohella had all retired. Yet, their cases were considered by

the DPC and they were granted notional regularization w.e.f. 01.07.2003.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also indicated that in the list of

93 persons, who were appointed on regular basis as Assistants w.e.f.

01.07.2003, the petitioner, as per his seniority, would be above Serial

No.33 (Sh. Ajeet Singh) and below Serial No.32 (Smt. Manjula Verma).

7. The learned counsel for the respondent supported the decision of the

Tribunal and submitted that there was no case for any interference.

However, considering the circumstances, we feel that since the

appointments of Assistants on regular basis against the select list for the

year 2003 was made w.e.f. 01.07.2003, the petitioner ought not to have

been ignored in the DPC held in September-October, 2009. There are two

reasons for this. The first reason is that on 01.07.2003 the petitioner had

not retired and persons junior to him have been given appointments as

Assistants on regular basis from that date. The second reason being that

even persons who had retired prior to the convening of the DPC in

September-October, 2009, have been considered by the DPC and have been

given appointment as Assistants of the CSS on a regular basis against the

select list for the year 2003. Such persons being Smt. Yashwanti Devi, Sh.

Kamla Ram and Smt. Sunita Rohella, about whom we have already

mentioned above.

8. In view of the foregoing, as well as the decision of a Division Bench

in the case of P.G. George (supra), we are clear that the petitioner ought

not to have been ignored from the DPC convened in September and

October, 2009 for the select list of 2003. Consequently, we direct the

respondent to convene a review DPC for the year 2003 and consider the

case of the petitioner for appointment as an Assistant of the CSS on a

regular basis against the select list of the year 2003. If he is found fit then

he shall be granted notional appointment as an Assistant of the CSS w.e.f.

01.07.2003 and shall be given consequential retiral benefits. However,

since the petitioner is no more, the benefit would be given to the widow

namely Smt. Resham Devi. The review DPC be convened within six weeks

from today.

9. The writ petition is allowed as above. There shall be no order as to

costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J SEPTEMBER 24, 2012 dn