CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH : BANGALORE
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.184/2010
TODAY, THIS THE DAY OF ................. , 2011
HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ...MEMBER(A)
HON'BLE SHRI V.AJAY KUMAR ...MEMBER(J)
Aged about 55 years, Geologist Sr.
Geological Survey of India,
Mangala Devi Road,
Panderwar, Mangalore – 575 001. ... Applicant
(By Advocate Shri S. Sugumaran)
1. Union of India,
by its Secretary,
Ministry of Mines, Shastri Bhavan,
New Delhi – 110 001.
2. Director General,
Geological Survey of India,
27, J.L. Nehru Road,
Kolkata – 700 016.
3. Dy. Director general,
Marine and Costal Survey Division,
Geological Survey of India,
Panderwar, Mangalore-575 001. ... Respondents
(By Advocate Shri M. Vasudeva Rao,
Senior Central Govt. Standing Counsel)
O R D E R
Hon'ble Smt. Leena Mehendale, Member (A) :
This application is filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, on 06-04-2010.
2. Before mentioning any facts, it is necessary to mention that after this OA was filed on 6.4.2010 and after the learned counsel for Respondents filed his
- 2 -
Memo of appearance on 16.6.2010, eight times adjournments have been given on the request of the learned counsel for respondents to file reply statement. Finally, on 15-12-2010, the Bench noted that if the reply of the respondents is not filed before the next date, then the matter would be disposed of without the reply. Thereafter, on a couple of occasions, the respondents had a chance to file their reply. But, no attempt has been made from the respondents' side to file the reply. Accordingly, the final hearing was taken up without the reply statement from the respondents, although the learned counsel for respondents remained present during hearing.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant belongs to the service of the Geological Survey of India which cadre he joined in 1980 and was promoted as Sr. Geologist in the year 1998.
4. It is claimed that he became eligible for promotion as Director Geology (new nomenclature Superintending Geologist) from the year 2005. Even so, no information is available in the OA about the DPC from year to year. The information furnished by the applicant by way of Annexure-A/1 is a reply from the respondent department to the query under the RTI Act, 2005. It states that:
"1. ..... A Review DPC for the post of Director (Geology) for the year 2007-08 was held on 02-03-2009 and a DPC for the post of Director (Geology) for the year 2009-09 was held on 03-03-2009. The total number of vacancies for the DPCs held on 02-03-2009 and 03-03-2009 were 58 and 57 respectively."
5. It is claimed through Annexure-A/3 which is a communication from the Director, HRD Division, Geological Survey of India, Kolkata, to the Senior DDG of GSI at various zonal offices that 75 Senior Geologists were assessed by the DPC held on 3-3-2009 in which the applicant appears at Sl.No.73.
- 3 -
6. It is claimed through Annexure-A/1 (attached list containing 120 names) that the Review DPC held on 2-3-2009 for the year 2007-2008 found officers at Sl.No.1 to 61 as eligible and empanelled whereas the regular DPC for the year 2008-09 held on 3-3-2009 found Sl.No.62 to 120 as eligible and empanelled them. The last person at Sl.No.120 was Shri Shyamsundar Ghosh, who is just above the applicant in the seniority list, and at Sl.No.72 in Annexure/A-3 (list of assessed officers).
7. It is claimed by way of Annexure-A/2, which is the representation of the applicant for promotion to the post of Director (Geology) that 55 Geologists were actually promoted by order No..../A-32013/I-Dir(Geol)/2008-09/19A dated 20-3-2009 from the list at Annexure-A/1 as against 57 vacant posts. It is claimed in the same representation that Shri U.K. Mishra at Sl.No.3 of that order was on deputation elsewhere, hence as against the remaining 2 clear vacancies for the year 2008-2009 and also in view of Shri U.K. Mishra not returning back to the cadre, the applicant should have been empanelled by DPC and promoted. He being next to Shyamsundar Ghosh in seniority, he should have been given promotion with effect from 20-3-2009 along with 55 others.
8. Therefore, he prayed that he has been denied promotion with effect from 20-3-2009 in an unjust, unfair and arbitrary manner. It is also claimed that out of 59 names mentioned from Sl. No.61 to 120 in the list of empanelled persons (Annexure-A/1) 4 persons have already retired before 20-3-2009. The reliefs sought therefore, at para 8.3. of the OA is as below:-
i) To call for the concerned records and on perusal to quash the panel of DPC dated 03-03-2009 to the extent of including 4 retired officials as on date of the panel;
- 4 -
ii) To direct the respondents to conduct a Review DPC to empanel the applicant for promotion to the post of superintending Geologist (Director Geology) against the vacancy of 2008-09.
(iii) Direct the respondents to promote the applicant from the date on which 55 officials were promoted against 2008-09 leaving two unfilled vacancies, with all consequential benefits inclusive of arrears of pay and allowances in the interest of justice,
(iv) Any other order or direction the Tribunal may deem it fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
9. It is also seen from the memo filed by the applicant on 14-03-2011 along with order No.2903/A-32013/1-Dir(Geol)/2009-10/19A, dated 1st April, 2010, that the applicant has been considered for promotion as Diector (Geology) for the year 2009-2010 and by virtue of the said promotion order, he comes next to Shri Shyamsunder Ghosh in the seniority which means that his seniority remains protected. It is noted with concern that even though this promotion order has been issued on 1-4-2010 and the OA has been filed on 06-4-2010, the information about the promotion against 2009-10 vacancies has been revealed before the Tribunal only on 14-03-2011. With equal concern, it is also noted that the 3 official respondents, first of all failed to consider the applicant's representation at Annexure-A/2 against 2008-09 vacancies and thereafter also failed to give any reply before this Tribunal as to why the same was not given.
10. As for the information given by the applicant that on the date of DPC, viz., 03-03-2009, 4 pesons in the zone of consideration had already retired, we notice that the effect of promotion order dated 20-3-2009, which is issued as a result of the DPC, is prospective in nature and not with retrospective effect. It clearly mentions that the officials will be promoted on the date of their taking over the charge. If that be the case, then, the officials have to explain whether the claim of the applicant for being considered against 2008-09 vacancy is
- 5 -
acceptable or otherwise. Therefore, they owe it to examine in the light of the retirement/resignation of 4 persons viz:-
1. N.S. Reddy (Sl. No.65)
2. S. Ahmed Khan (Sl. No.79)
3. Anil Kumar Buragohain (Sl. No.85)
4. T.R. Anantharamu (Sl. No.117).
11. Thus, we also find that the representation at Annexure-A/2 has remained un-disposed. Since, the applicant has already received his promotion with effect from 1-4-2010 against 2009-10 vacancy, the only question that remains now is that of his claim against the 2008-09 vacancy.
12. Therefore, having gone through the details of Annexures-A/1, A/2, A/3, A/4 and A/5, we direct the respondents to consider the representation of the applicant at Annexure-A/2 in the light of the remaining four Annexures as well as in the light of his prayer in the OA made at para *9i) to (iii) and dispose of the same by a speaking and reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
(V. AJAY KUMAR) (LEENA MEHENDALE)
MEMBER (J) MEMBER (A)