Ramaswamy vs Union Of India And Ors.

The writ application on behalf of the Petitioner has been filed assailing the decision dated 13.01.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,

Jabalpur, with Circuit Bench at Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal').

Original Application No. 1083 of 2010 was filed by the Petitioner assailing an order and the decision dated 22.11.2010 issued by the Respondent

No. 3 i.e. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-1 who not only modified or revised the previous decisions of the Departmental Promotion

Committee (for short 'the DPC') dated 30.06.2005 by cancelling the regular promotion of the Petitioner but reversed him from the post of Section

Supervisor on the basis of a review DPC held.

Shorn of other details, by virtue of certain arrangements which were ad hoc in nature and preparation of a seniority list, the DPC promoted the

present Petitioner on the regular post of Section Supervisor after he put in similar nature of work for almost 5 years on ad hoc basis. From the

narration of facts which are available on record, it emerges that a seniority list was drawn up earlier and that seniority list showed the present

Petitioner senior to private Respondent No. 4. That seniority list, however, did not stand. It was because of the promotion granted from that seniority

list that a dispute arose earlier which led to filing of Original Application No. 336 of 2003 by some of the employees, affected by the said seniority list,

namely Jay Mohan and others, as well as Original Application No. 510 of 2004 by Ku. Jyoti Lakre and four others. The seniority list which was drawn

up on the basis of the judicial order passed by the Tribunal in the two Original Applications were notified on 22.05.2008. In that seniority list, the

Petitioner was shown at serial No. 23 and Respondent No. 4 at serial No. 19. The Respondent No. 4 was senior to the present Petitioner. Even

though, Mr. Nair tried to convince us that by the length of service, his client was senior to Respondent No. 4, but keeping in mind that the seniority list

dated 22.05.2008 has stood its ground, therefore, when Respondent No. 4 agitated the issue of his claim for grant of promotion, being senior to the

present Petitioner, a revised DPC was required to be held and on the basis of seniority of Respondent No. 4 he had to be given the rightful claim to

the post of Section Supervisor. Due to the non-availability of vacancies, the present Petitioner came to be reverted.

The main argument on behalf of the counsel for the Petitioner against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal which dismissed his OA was

that the Tribunal overlooked the fact that opportunity of hearing was not given by the authorities before the order of reversion was passed or before

the review DPC was held by the authorities. Since the said decision has civil consequences therefore, the minimum that the Tribunal should have done

is to set aside the order of the revised DPC and give an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner before a fresh decision could be taken by the

authorities. The submission of the counsel for the Petitioner is attractive, however, the object behind grant of opportunity of hearing in no manner

alters the factual position. The Petitioner has been the beneficiary of ad hoc arrangement and admitted position is that his seniority position was shown

above Respondent No. 4 on the basis of an erroneous drawn up seniority list and the revised seniority list came into place after the results of the

departmental examination was published. Since the necessary Rule which has been quoted by the Tribunal in the impugned order lays down that

seniority list will depend upon the basis of performance in the departmental examination and such issues are not subject matter of any serious

argument, the Tribunal rightly held that the earlier erroneous seniority list based on which the promotion was granted to the present Petitioner was

required to be re-visited in light of the corrected seniority list dated 22.05.2008.

Since the learned counsel for the Petitioner did not succeed in establishing his case that the Respondent No. 4 is in any manner junior to him, merely

giving him an opportunity of hearing will not alter the actual position with regard to his status on the seniority list. Since the right of a senior to be

considered and granted promotion is also an important right therefore, if the review DPC put the Petitioner in his rightful place and in absence of

vacancy if he had to be reverted, he cannot make a grievance that his long continuance on the basis of earlier decision is detrimental to his interest so

requires to be revisited.

If this Court is concerned about the right of the Petitioner to hold on to the promoted post, we are also concerned about the right of the senior who

came to be denied promotion by non-consideration or non-grant in the earlier round of DPC which was held and which was not based on the correct

seniority position of all the employees in question.

Another significant aspect which we have noticed is that the seniority list dated 22.05.2008 was never challenged by the Petitioner and therefore,

his seniority stood below the Respondent No. 4 and if the illegality caused to Respondent No. 4 was restored by the revised DPC, the Tribunal

committed no error by refusing to interfere with the impugned order dated 22.11.2010.

We must, however, compliment the counsel for the Petitioner in being truthful to the Court that even though he had lost his case before the Tribunal

but in ground reality, due to shortage of hands, he is again back on the post of Section Supervisor on ad hoc basis and he still continues to exercise the

same authority and derive the same perks and privileges after reversion order was passed.

Since the Tribunal has not committed any error in dismissing the Original Application which requires rectification, this writ application is dismissed.