Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 466 (GAU)

Union of India (UOI) v. Biju Mahanta

2003-10-27

I.A.ANSARI, P.P.NAOLEKAR

body2003
JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. These appeals have been filed by the Union of India challenging the order dated 8th May, 1998 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, in Original Application Nos. 130 and 131 of 1994. By the order passed by this Court, these appeals have been heard together. 2. Smt. Renu Mazumdar the applicant in OA No. 130/94 was appointed in the year 1970 as Draftsman in the office of the Director of Censes Operation, Arunachal Pradesh, Shillong. She was transferred to Directorate of Censes Operation, Assam. Smt. Biju Mahanta, the applicant in OA No. 131/94 was appointed as Draftsman in July 1980 in the Office of the Censes Operation, Assam, Guwahati. Admittedly, the next promotional post of Draftsman in the Censes Department is Artist. Smt. Renu Mazumdar was promoted on the recommendation of a regular Departmental Promotion Committee on the post of Artist on 23.10.1991 on regular basis in scale of pay of Rs. 1400-2300. Smt. Biju Mahanta was also promoted to the post of Artist with effect from 30.04.1990 on regular basis. Both the applicants (respondents herein) were continuously working in the post of Artist till 30.11.1993 when they have been reverted to the post of Draftsman consequent upon the discontinuation of the two posts of Artists created in connection with the 1991 Censes by the Registrar General vide letter dated 30.11.3993, Being aggrieved by the order of reversion, both the applicants preferred applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal at Guwahati. The Central Administrative Tribunal has accepted the contentions raised by the applicants (respondents herein) that they have been regularly promoted to the posts of Artists and could not have been demoted to the post of Draftsman on the basis of the fact that these two posts of Artists have been created for 1991 Census have been abolished. It is the case of the respondent, Union of India, that promotion has been given to these applicants on temporarily posts created for completion of 1991 Census and, therefore, on abolition of those posts, they have been reverted to the original substantive posts. The Tribunal has found that the order of promotion issued in favour of the Respondents herein does not mention that they have been promoted on temporary posts created in the Department of Artist for completion of 1991 Census. The Tribunal has found that the order of promotion issued in favour of the Respondents herein does not mention that they have been promoted on temporary posts created in the Department of Artist for completion of 1991 Census. The promotion by holding a regular Departmental Promotion Committee, itself, indicates that the promotion has been made on regular posts and not on temporary vacancies by creating the posts of Artists. The Tribunal has also given opportunity to the learned counsel appearing for the Union of India to produce records before it to show that the applicants/respondents herein were promoted to the temporary vacancies and not on regular posts. The Tribunal has noticed that in spite of several opportunities being given to the counsel for the Union of India, no record has been produced to show that the applicants (respondents herein) have been temporarily promoted on temporary posts. Considering all these factors, the Tribunal was of the view that the applicants (respondents herein) have been regularly promoted on the posts of Artist and they could not have been reverted to the posts from which they have been promoted, on the basis that the temporary vacancies created for 1991 Censes have been abolished. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, on the basis of documents produced before us that the temporary posts of Artists have been created in the Census Department on 18.3.1991 and the promotions of applicants/respondents have been made in those vacancies only. First, creation of certain posts does not necessarily mean that the promotion have been made on those posts only. Secondly, the order of promotion does not indicate that the applicants/respondents have been promoted on temporarily created posts. Thirdly, the respondent Smt. Biju Mahanta has been promoted on 3.5.1990, whereas the temporary post of Artist has been created on 18.3.1991. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the applicant Smt. Biju Mahanta, who has been promoted to the post of Artists on 3.5.1990 has been promoted in a temporary capacity to the post, which has been subsequently created on 18.3.1991. Before us also there is no material placed on record to indicate that the applicants/respondents have been promoted on temporary posts. In the aforesaid circumstances, we cannot take a different view than what has been held by the Tribunal. Before us also there is no material placed on record to indicate that the applicants/respondents have been promoted on temporary posts. In the aforesaid circumstances, we cannot take a different view than what has been held by the Tribunal. The orders of promotion having not indicative of any temporary promotion, the applicants/respondents could not have been reverted to the posts of Draftsman on the basis of the fact that temporary vacancies created in the Census Department have been abolished. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeals fail and are dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,500 each. Appeal dismissed