Tuesday, October 4, 2011

OA NO.151/2009 on 08-09-2011 --oral

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH:BANGALORE

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.151/2009

DATED THIS THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2011

HON'BLE SMT LEENA MEHENDALE, MEMBER (A)

HON'BLE SHRI V. AJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (J)

Shri M.S.Murali,
S/o M.K.Sathyanarayana Rao,
Aged about 48 years,
Junior Accounts Officer,
Sports Authority of India,
Southern Centre, Mysore Road,
Bangalore. ... Applicant

(By Shri G.T.Kumar, Advocate of M/s K.Sreedhara Associates)

vs

1.The Union of India,
The Secretary,
Department of Youth Affairs
and Sports, Shastri Bhavan,
New Delhi – 110 001.

2. The Director General,
Sports Authority of India,
Indira Gandhi Stadium,
IPA Estate, New Delhi – 110 003

3.The Director (Personnel
and Coaching), Sports
Authority of India, Indira
Gandhi Stadium, IPA,
Estate, New Delhi – 110 003.

4. The Director,
Sports Authority of India,
NSSC, Kengeri, Bangalore. .... Respondents

(By Shri S.Prakash Shetty, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for R-1, Shri M.C.Thimmaiah, Advocate of
M/s Cariappa and Co.)

O R D E R (ORAL)

SMT LEENA MEHENDALE, MEMBER (A):

This OA has been filed on 18.06.2009 with a plea that the applicant has joined the service as LDC in 1990 and eligible for first ACP in the year 2002. The ACP was actually granted in 2006. Hence the prayer is to grant him ACP with retrospective effect from 12.02.2002. In the reply statement it was clarrified that the present DPC held in 2004 has considered him ineligible on the ground of non fulfillment of required bench marks in the ACR. The next DPC which was held in 2005 and extended up to April 2006 in which his recent ACRs were considered and he was given a benefit with effect from 24.02.2006. This is as per the Scheme of ACP, which says that if found eligible in the subsequent DPC, the financial upgradation can be granted from the date of DPC. This ACP should have been granted from 24.04.2006 which is the date of DPC and it seems that due to clerical mistake it was granted from 24.02.2006, and the department has now no intention to recover the benefit of those extra 2 months. However, the ACP can not be granted from 2002.

2. We have gone through the orders passed earlier by this Tribunal in O.A.No.367/04. Para -5 of this order clearly indicates that on the date of the order i.e. on 12.11.2004 the applicant was definitely aware that his request for financial upgradation from 2002 was rejected by the DPC on the ground of not fulfilling the bench marks of the ACR. The learned counsel for the respondents points out that even if admitting the applicant claims that he did not receive R-1 which is the communication for adverse remarks of the ACR dated 15.01.2000, he had the knowledge of adverse remarks as well as of the rejection of his ACP claim. He did not challenge the same in 2004 but waited for getting the ACP in 2006 and hence now time barred.

3. We have also gone through the order passed in O.A.63/06 on 10.02.2006 in which it was claimed that the applicant did not have the order which is presently at Annexure -R2 which is a communication about the non fulfillment of the required bench mark of the ACR. But he has subsequently, in 2006 received the copy of the same order R-2. He has challenged it only in 2009 by way of this OA and that without challenging the adverse remarks in ACR.

4. All these goes to show that the applicant was aware of the adverse remarks in the ACR as well as the department's decision not to consider him eligible for financial upgradation with effect from 2002. They gave him upgradation in 2006. Thus in 2009 he has no case to make any further claim for getting financial upgradation of retrospective effect. Hence OA is rejected. No order as to cost.


(V. AJAY KUMAR) (LEENA MEHENDALE)
MEMBER (J) MEMBER (A)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No comments:

Post a Comment