Original Application Nos. 609 of 2012, 92 and 718, 721, 790 of 2013 and 180/00038/2014, 180/00104/2014 and 180/00311/2014. Case: 1. M.C. Das, 2. K.P. Alavi Vs 1. A.G. Geetha, 2. Union of India. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | Original Application Nos. 609 of 2012, 92 and 718, 721, 790 of 2013 and 180/00038/2014, 180/00104/2014 and 180/00311/2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: T.C. Govindaswamy and P. Ramakrishnan, Advocates and For Respondents: Shafik M.A., Sunil Jacob Jose, SCGSC, George Joseph, ACGSC, Varghese P. Thomas, ACGSC, M.K. Aboobacker, ACGSC and A.D. Raveendra Prasad, ACGSC, Advocates |
| Judges | U. Sarathchandran, Member (J) and P.K. Pradhan, Member (A) |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Articles 226, 227 |
| Judgement Date | August 21, 2014 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Order:
U. Sarathchandran, Member (J), (Ernakulam Bench)
-
These Original Applications were taken up together for consideration in view of the situation that the controversy involved in these applications are identical in nature i.e. the seniority of the individual applicants and their co-employees with reference to their date of initial engagement/regularization.
-
We feel that it would be appropriate to state the contentions of the parties in each of these OAs briefly before we enter into adjudication of these matters.
-
OA/609/2012 -
3.1. We allow the joint application MA No. 685 of 2012 in this matter.
3.2. Here the applicants, three in number, are seeking a declaration that the party respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are not entitled to seniority from the date of their casual engagement but only with effect from the dates they were regularly absorbed. According to applicants they were directly recruited to the post of Lower Division Clerk through the Staff Selection Commission on 28.8.1982, 16.6.1982 and 25.9.1982 respectively. They were promoted as Upper Division Clerks, Assistants, Superintendents and later as Passport Granting Officers earlier than respondents 1 to 3. However, by an order from this Tribunal in OA No. 27 of 2009, respondents Nos. 1 & 2 who were appointed on 15.5.1978 and respondent No. 3 on 10.7.1978 have obtained a direction to the official respondents to re-fix their seniority from the dates of their initial engagement on casual basis. Applicants contend that by the said order of this Tribunal the clock has been set back by 30 years affecting the seniority of the directly recruited applicants to their chagrin and heart burn on account of the prospects of loosing their seniority. Applicants had approached this Tribunal challenging Annexure A6 order of the official respondents herein who decided to implement an identical order obtained by this Tribunal by Smt. V. Anita, Smt. Indu S. Nair and Smt. P. Sudhabai for fixing their seniority from the date of their initial engagement on daily rated basis vide orders in OAs Nos. 297 of 2008, 299 of 2008 and 300 of 2008. OA No. 196 of 2010 filed by the applicants was referred to a Full Bench and it was finally decided by the Full Bench on 12.8.2011 holding that the persons like respondents 1 to 3 herein would be entitled to seniority only with effect from the date of their regular appointments and not from the date of their initial appointment on casual basis. Annexure A7 is the aforesaid order of the Full Bench of this Tribunal. The applicants, therefore, seek the following reliefs:-
(a) Declare that the respondents 1 to 3 are not entitled to seniority from the date of their initial casual engagement, but only with effect from the dates from which they were regularly absorbed i.e. 1.6.1985 in the case of the 1st and the 2nd respondents and 13.6.1985 in the case of the 3rd respondent and direct the respondents accordingly;
(b) Award costs of and incidental thereto;
(c) Pass such other orders or directions as deemed just and fit by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
3.3. The respondents 1 to 3 contended that their seniority was granted as per the Annexure A1 order of this Tribunal which is based on the Apex Court decision in Amrit lal Berry v. CCE - (1975) 4 SCC 714 and Inderpal Yadav v. Union of India - (1985) 2 SCC 648 and also based on the Vth Central Pay Commission recommendations. According to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 if the applicants are liable to be adversely affected while implementing Annexure A1 order it is for the official respondents to take appropriate remedial action. Since the respondents did not anticipate that the applicants would be adversely affected, hence, they did not implead the applicants in OA 27 of 2009 which led to Annexure A1 order. The applicants herein had approached the Hon'ble High Court challenging Annexure A1 order in WP(C) No. 13949 of 2010 but it was turned down by the Hon'ble High Court relying on the Apex Court decision in Rajeev Kumar v. Hemraj Singh Chauhan - AIR 2010 SC 1679. It was also pointed out that similar Writ Petitions Nos. 36648 of 2008, 7134 of 2009 and 36648 of 2008 also have been dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court stating that the issue pertaining to seniority with reference to date of entry in service was covered by the judgment of the High Court in WP(C) 5521 of 2009. The respondents further contend that the contentions of the applicants based on Annexure A7 order of the Full Bench of this Tribunal is not well founded and is mischievous. Annexure A1 order is dated 28.10.2009 whereas Annexure A7 is ordered on 12.8.2011 only and by no stretch of imagination Annexure A1 can be assailed on the basis of Annexure A7 order of the year 2011. According to the respondents 1 to 3 as the orders inter-parties have already been finalised by disposal of the appeals and by efflux of time Annexure A1 decision is not affected by a subsequent order of the Full Bench of this Tribunal.
3.4. In the reply filed by the official respondents 4 to 6 it is contended in paragraphs 4 to 7 as follows:-
4. The respondents submits that subsequent to passing the order dated 28/10/09, a Larger Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal reviewed some of its earlier orders in similar cases and passed the following order on 12/8/11. b?_The casual employees are entitled to be regularized with effect from their initial engagement and will be entitled for all other consequential benefits other than seniority and monetary benefit.b?_
5. The Larger Bench's decision has been accepted by the Ministry and all Passport Offices have been directed to take necessary administrative actions in order to implement the same. Copy of Ministry's Order No. V.IV/441/13/2011 dated 11/5/12 is produced and marked as Annexure R1.
6. It is submitted that the order dated 28/10/09 in OA. No. 27/09, where the applicants have been granted seniority and all monetary benefits from the dates of their initial engagement, is in contradiction with the larger Bench's order dated 12/8/11, where the applicants have been granted all consequential benefits except seniority and monetary benefits.
7. However, in view of the larger benches decision the respondents are in process of completing the administrative formalities in granting notional fixation of pay in the scale of LDC to all daily rated Clerks from the date of their initial engagement and arrears from the date of their regularization as LDCs in CPO cadre. Direction to issue necessary pay fixation order in respect of such officials has also been issued by the Ministry vide Annexure R1. In view of the above contentions, the OA is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed with costs to the respondents.
-
OA/92/2013 -
4.1. Applicant in this case is currently working as a Passport Granting Officer who had been working in the respondents' Department with his seniority maintained over respondents 1 to 3 (who are respondents 1 to 3 in OA No. 609 of 2012 also). He contends that he is now subjected to a humiliating situation of being placed below his erstwhile juniors in view of the implementation of the order of this Tribunal in OA No. 27 of 2009. The applicant challenges the action of the official respondents in taking a decision to implement the order of this Tribunal in OA No. 27 of 2009 and hence has come up with the following prayers:-
(a) Call for the records leading to the issue of Annexure A6 and quash the same.
(b) Declare that the respondents 1 to 3 are not entitled to seniority over the applicant and to be precise from the date of their initial casual engagement, but only with effect from the dates from which they were regularly absorbed i.e. 01.06.1985 in the case of the 1st and the 2nd respondents and 13.6.1985 in the case of the 3rd respondent and direct the respondents accordingly;
(c) Award costs of and incidental thereto; (d) Pass such other orders or directions as deemed just and fit by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
4.2. The party respondents 1 to 3 filed a reply which is almost identical to the reply filed by them in OA No. 609 of 2012.
4.3. In their reply the official respondents 4 to 6 contends that Annexure A6 order which is impugned in this OA was issued subject to the outcome of OA No. 609 of 2012.
-
OA/718/2013 -
5.1. MA No. 819 of 2013 for joining applicants together stands allowed.
5.2. The first applicant and applicants Nos. 3 to 6 have retired from service while working as Passport Granting Officers. 2nd applicant is presently working as Passport Granting Officer. They entered service as daily rated clerks on 11.10.1977, 3.10.1977, 3.10.1977, 21.3.1977...
To continue reading
Request your trial