OA No. 3835/2010 with MA No. 1001/2011, OA No. 4168/2010 with MA No. 1266/2011, OA No. 412/2011. Case: 1. Ashok Kumar Jha S/o Late Shrikant Jha, 2. Ajaya Kumar Dhal S/o Late N. K. Dhal, 3. D. S. Naidu S/o D. C. V. Subba Naidu Vs 1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, 2. National Highway Authority of India, Through its Chairman. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | OA No. 3835/2010 with MA No. 1001/2011, OA No. 4168/2010 with MA No. 1266/2011, OA No. 412/2011 |
| Judges | V. K. Bali (Chairman) & Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda (Accountant Member) |
| Issue | Service Law |
| Judgement Date | July 08, 2011 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Judgment:
V. K. Bali (Chairman), (Principal Bench New Delhi)
-
By this common order, we propose to dispose of three connected Original Applications bearing OA Nos.3835/2010, 4168/2010 and 412/2011. These matters can be disposed of in view of the consensus arrived at between the parties. We may, however, refer to the background of the case.
-
By a common order, we disposed of seven connected OAs vide order dated 25.03.2010. The Applicants in the OAs aforesaid had prayed to declare the action of the respondents inter alia in proceedings to fill up 34 posts of Manager (Technical) which are in fact already filled up in accordance with the Rules, 1996 (un-amended on which the applicants are working since 2000 onwards), as illegal, arbitrary and to further direct the respondents to treat the applicants as having been absorbed on the post of Manager (Technical) in accordance with the Recruitment Regulation, 1996 read with Guidelines dated 12.05.1999 and accord the benefit of seniority in accordance with Regulation 15 (3) of Recruitment Regulation, 1996. The Applicants, who were from different departments, came on deputation with National Highways Authority of India on various dates in or after the year 2000 on the post of Manager (Technical). They were continuing on the said posts on deputation, which was being extended from time to time. The immediate grievance of the applicants was that vide advertisement dated 07.09.2009, 34 posts of Manager (Technical) were required to be filled by mode known as 'lateral entry'. The grievance of the applicants was that such posts could not be filled till such time they were absorbed and for which purpose their cases were under consideration. We may extract Paragraph nos. 4, 5 and 6 of our order, which read thus:-
4. During the course of arguments, Mr. Banerji, learned Additional Solicitor General, states that a decision has already been taken that first the cases of the applicants for absorption would be considered and thereafter the posts would be filled. It is also the mandate of Rule 13 of 2009 amendment rules. The statement made by Mr. Banerji puts the controversy at rest.
5. In view of the consensus that has been arrived at between the parties, we dispose of all these Original Applications directing the respondents to first consider the cases of the applicants for their absorption and thereafter they may fill up the posts as per the advertisement in accordance with rules.
6. Let the...
To continue reading
Request your trial