Nizamuddin vs Union Of India & Ors

Ashish Kalia, Member (J)

The applicant has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following main reliefs:

“(a) Issue direction/order to quash and set aside the impugned order No. 21204/Niz/CC/Discp. Dated 19.1.2015.

(b) Issue further direction/order to quash and set aside Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence, letter No. 11(5)/2009-D(Civ-1) dated 14.06.2010 to the extent of its operation being made retrospectively w.e.f. 01.01.2006 by way of restructuring of the Tradesman cadres and making the post of MCM (Master Craftsman) to the post of hierarchy, instead should be prospectively from the date of issue of the order i.e. 14.6.2010. (Annex. M-1)

(c) To direct the respondents to conduct separate Review DPC/Board of officers in a given time frame to grant promotion/elevation to the applicant for the post of MCM retrospectively w.e.f. 1.10.2007 the day his five junior colleagues were promoted/elevated as per the RRs applicable at that point of time.

(d) To direct the respondents to grant all consequential benefits on re-fixation of Pay Scale/Grade Pay on promotion/elevation as MCM w.e.f. 01.10.2007.

(e) direct the respondents to pay interest @12% on the pay arrears subsequent to refixation pay on Promotion/elevation.”

The facts as stated in the OA are that the applicant had approached this Tribunal earlier by filing OA No. 3902/2013 aggrieved by the alleged inaction on the part of the respondents by not promoting him from the date his juniors were promoted, that is w.e.f. 01.10.2007. The OA was disposed of by this Tribunal on 05.11.2014 with the following directions:

“5. In these circumstances, since the respondents are yet to dispose of the pending representation of the applicant, it would be appropriate that respondents are directed to dispose of the representation of the applicant in the light of prayer made in his representation as well as in this OA. A copy of this OA be forwarded to the respondents for this purpose. Respondents are further directed that while deciding the applicant‟s claim for promotion, due consideration be given to the contentions of the applicant and further that decision may be taken in consonance with the related rules and instructions. Respondents are directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order under intimation to the applicant within eight weeks from today. If the applicant feels still aggrieved by the order passed by the respondents on his representation, applicant would be at liberty to initiate appropriate legal proceedings, if so advised.”

It is submitted by the applicant that the respondents have passed a speaking order dated 19.01.2015, which is impugned herein, stating that a review board held w.e.f. 27th September 2012 to 03rd July 2012 has recommended to demote 435 Master Craftsman including the juniors mentioned by the applicant in Para 4.3 of the earlier OA No. 3902/2014, due to change of policy. They have also mentioned that a show cause notice dated 27th Jan, 2014 has been issued to the employees recommended for reversion to the post/grade from where they were elevated to Master Craftsmen by the Review Committee. The speaking order also mentions that some effected employees have filed court cases before various courts against the proposed demotion and stay orders have been issued in those cases. The junior tradesman as mentioned at Para 4.3 of OA No. 3902/2014 will be reverted to the post/grade from where they were elevated to Master Craftsmen as and when the stay orders granted are discharged and, thereafter, the applicant will be considered for promotion to Master Craftsman as per seniority, on availability of unreserved vacancy in Elect trade.

The applicant submits that at present, the tradesmen junior to the applicant are still holding the post of Master Craftsmen since 01.10.2007 and are earning the pay and allowances higher than the applicant and the applicant is still holding the post of HS Grade-I. It is further submitted that in the show cause notice dated 27.01.2014 issued to the employees recommended by the review committee for demotion, no mention has been made about the recovery of excess payment drawn by them for the period they performed the duties of Master Craftsmen. Hence, the applicant submits that the applicant cannot be put to disadvantageous position for the administrative lapses and that the respondents are duty bound to fist promote the applicant to the post of Master Craftsmen w.e.f. 01.10.2007.

Notices were issued to the respondents who put appearance through their counsel and filed reply. In Para 8(b) of the same, they have averred as under:

“Para 8(b) That the contents of the corresponding para, except those being matter of records, are wrong, misleading and misconceived and hence vehemently denied. It is submitted that the Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence letter No. 11(5)/2009-D (Civ 1) dated 14 Jun 2010 (Annexure R-1) clearly says that the post of MCM has been declared as a post in hierarchy w.e.f. 01 Jan 2006 and not from the date of issue of letter dt 14 Jun 2010. Accordingly, the department has taken action in case of elevation/promotion of MCM which is completely in accordance with Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence letter dt 14 Jun 2010 and in accordance with existing Govt. policies. It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon‟ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to dismiss the OA with cost against the applicant and in favour of replying respondents. The applicant deserves no relief, interim and/or of whatsoever nature.”

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

In view of the narration above, we are of the considered view that since the review committee recommended tradesmen upto seniority No. 91 for promotion to MCM as per the vacancies available for UR category in Elect trade, recommended to demote 435 Master Craftsmen and after approval of the review board by the competent authority, promotion of juniors of the applicant has been withdrawn and in the light of stay being granted by the Courts in their cases, the applicant cannot claim parity with them unless the court decides in their favour. The applicant may make fresh claim on the basis of final decision in the court cases filed by juniors.

The OA is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.