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)
K.V. Ramachandran,
Aged about 55 years, Geologist Sr.
Geological Survey of India,
Mangala Devi Road,
Panderwar, Mangalore – 575 001. ... Applicant
(By
Advocate Shri S. Sugumaran)
Vs.
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)
psp.
No comments:
Post a Comment