Friday, November 2, 2012

OA No 174 / 2008 on ????????? Aug 2010



DATED THIS THE                 DAY OF AUGUST, 2010



N. Kausalya,
Aged about 55 years,
W/o Sri Ganapathy,
Upper Division Clerk,
O/o the Additional.Director,
Central Government Health Scheme,
3rd Floor, 'E' Wing, Kendriya Sadan,
Koramangala, Bangalore – 560 034.                          
R/at No.215, (New No.1852) VIII Cross,
II Block, Viswapriya Nagar, Begur Road,
Bangalore – 560 034.                                                  ...                                 Applicant

(By Advocate Shri K. Haniffa)

1. The Additional Director,
    Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS),
    3rd Floor, 'E' Wing,
    Kendriya Sadan, Koramangala,
    Bangalore – 560 034.

2. The Director, CGHS-II,
    Directorate General of Health Services,
    Nirman Bhavan,
    New Delhi – 560 034.

3. Union of India,
    Rep. by its Secretary,
    Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,
    New Delhi.

4. Sri V. Vasudevan,
    Office Superintendent,
    O/o the Additional.Director,
    Central Government Health Scheme,
    3rd Floor, 'E' Wing, Kendriya Sadan,
    Koramangala, Bangalore – 560 034.           ....                               Respondents

(By Advocate Shri V.N. Holla, Addl Central Govt. Standing Counsel
for R-1 to R-3 and R-4 party in person)

- 2 -


Hon'ble Smt. Leena Mehendale, Member (A) :

            Aggrieved by the promotion order dated 4th December, 2007 (Annexure-A/6) , that denies her claim, the applicant has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
2.         The applicant is working as UDC in CGHS since 25.10.1996.  She is entitled to promotion as Office Superintendent in due course.  Alternatively, if she possesses some special qualification, then she is also entitled to the promotion of Accountant.  On the other hand, employees working as Stenographers Gr.II are also entitled to be promoted as Office Superintendent and the alternative promotion avenue for them is Stenographer Gr.I. 

3.         Annexure-A/3 produced before us by the learned counsel for the applicant is the Office Memorandum dated 03.07.2007 circulating the seniority list of UDCs as on 03.07.2007, in which the name of the applicant is at Sl.No.1.  However, on 4.12.2007, a promotion to the post of Office Superintendent was given retrospectively with effect from 19.7.2007 to another colleague of the applicant, respondent No.4 herein, who was earlier working in the grade of Stenographer Gr.II (Annexure-A/6).  In this connection, a notification dated 24.9.1986 issued by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, describes the rules for regulating the method of recruitment to the post of Office Superintendent in the CGHS (Annexure-A/7).  Column 12 of the schedule to the notification which pertains to promotion to the post of Office Superintendent prescribes the following eligibility criteria:-
"Promotion:-  Upper Division Clerks/Stenographers Gr.II with 5 years service in the respective grades in the concerned city and minimum of two years' experience of administrative work."

- 3 -

4.                  The main contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant were four.

            First, the Respondent No.4 who is the Stenographer Gr.II has a separate promotional channel to be promoted as Stenographer Gr.I.  The applicant has only one channel unless she possesses the extra qualification i.e. Accountancy to be promoted as Accountant. Thus, there is no parity and equity in the rules which allow only one promotional channel to UDC, but, two promotional avenues to Stenographers, Gr.II. 

            Secondly, in the Recruitment Rules at Annexure-A/7 column No.12 quoted above, the words  UDC and Stenographer Gr.II are juxtaposed in a typical manner.  It first mentions the word UDC followed by a slash followed by the word Stenographers Gr.II.  As per the learned counsel for the applicant, this manner of wording must be construed as a direction that only UDCs should be initially considered for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent and only if there is no proper UDC available, the list of Stenographers Gr.II should be considered. 
            Thirdly, the pay scale of the applicant is Rs.4000-6000/- and the pay scale of Respondent No.4 is Rs.5000-8000/-.  The applicant therefore challenges Annexure-A/12 which is the details of inter-se seniority of UDCs/Stenographers Gr.II submitted by Respondent No.4 which indicates the date of regular appointment in the feeder cadre for Respondent No.4 as 14.09.1992 and for the applicant as 25.10.1996.  It also mentions the date of eligibility for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent for them both as 14.09.1997 and 25.10.2001 respectively.  The applicant challenges this inter-se seniority
list on the ground that they are two different posts in two different pay scales and therefore cannot be combined to determine a common inter-se seniority.

            Fourthly, the applicant relies on the fact that she happened, by way of an application to point out to the department that the post of Office Superintendent was lying
- 4 -
vacant and applied for the same,  Hence, she has the first claim for promotion.

5.         The respondents have relied upon the inter-se seniority at Annexure-A/12 and the Recruitment Rules at Annexure-A/7 and have argued that in view of these two documents, not much is left to be said, as to why the claim of the applicnt can stand only after the claim of Respondent No.4.

6.         We have heard and considered both the submissions.  It is common practice in the Government to allow diverse feeder cadres to be brought together for the purpose of promotion to higher post and we see nothing wrong in the Recruitment Rules at Annexure-A/7.  The argument of the learned counsel for the applicant regarding the interpretation of slash '(/)' for which he relies on the dictionary meaning and has quoted elaborately from the dictionary, is rejected. Whenever eligibility of two different cadres is to be indicated, the slash is a commonly used symbol and by tradition it never indicates the preference of the first over the second. If such a preference was to be given, the wording used, in keeping with the present government tradition would have been "first from the cadre of UDCs and on not getting the suitable candidates, from the cadre of Stenographers Gr.II".

7.         The OA is thus dismissed.  No order as to costs.

            (LEENA MEHENDALE)                              (N.D. RAGHAVAN)
                     MEMBER (A)                                       VICE CHAIRMAN


No comments:

Post a Comment