Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2767 (DEL)

C. B. SINGH v. SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

2012-09-24

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

body2012
JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 26.07.2011 and 20.09.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No.2666/2011 and R.A. No.296/2011 whereby the petitioner’s said Original Application and the Review Application have been rejected. 2. The only point which arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the petitioner ought to have been considered in the DPC which was convened in September and October, 2009 for the year 2003, which considered the select list for that year insofar as regular appointments to the posts of Assistants in the Central Secretariat Service (CSS) was concerned. 3. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was working as an UDC in the Central Secretariat Clerical Service (CSCS). He was appointed as an Assistant on ad-hoc basis w.e.f. 25.03.2004. The petitioner, while working in the said ad-hoc capacity as an Assistant retired on 31.07.2006. When the DPC was convened for the select list of Assistants in the year 2003 in September and October, 2009, the petitioner was not considered by the said DPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the convening of the DPC in September and October, 2009, even persons junior to him have been granted regular appointments as Assistants with retrospective effect from 01.07.2003, which is prior to the date of superannuation of the petitioner. Consequently, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted, on the strength of a decision of this Court in the case of Union of India vs. P.G. George : W.P.(C) 4864/2010 decided on 23.07.2010 that since the persons junior to the petitioner have been given promotion as Assistants on a regular basis w.e.f. 01.07.2003, which is prior to the date on which the petitioner superannuated (i.e. 31.07.2006), the petitioner ought to be given notional promotion from 01.07.2003 and be granted consequential retiral benefits. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also drew our attention to the orders dated 20.11.2009 whereby 93 persons were appointed as regular Assistants of the CSS against the select list for the year 2003. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention specifically to persons shown at Serial No.20 (Smt. Yashwanti Devi) who had retired voluntarily; Serial No.81 (Sh. Kamla Ram) who had also retired; and Serial No.90 (Smt. Sunita Rohella) who had also retired voluntarily. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention specifically to persons shown at Serial No.20 (Smt. Yashwanti Devi) who had retired voluntarily; Serial No.81 (Sh. Kamla Ram) who had also retired; and Serial No.90 (Smt. Sunita Rohella) who had also retired voluntarily. The learned counsel for the petitioner then drew our attention to the answer received by him on a query under the Right to Information Act, 2005 wherein the respective dates of retirement of the said Smt. Yashwanti Devi, Sh. Kamla Ram and Smt. Sunita Rohella have been set out. As per the said information, Smt. Yashwanti Devi took voluntary retirement on 04.06.2008; Sh. Kamla Ram retired on 31.07.2009 and Smt. Sunita Rohella took voluntary retirement on 03.08.2009. The said response dated 05.09.2011 to the RTI query also indicates the dates when the DPC was held. It is revealed that the DPC was held on 10th and 11th of September, 2009 and then on 22nd, 23rd and 26th of October, 2009. 5. From the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has been successful in demonstrating that when the DPC was convened in September-October, 2009, the said Smt. Yashwanti Devi, Sh. Kamla Ram and Smt. Sunita Rohella had all retired. Yet, their cases were considered by the DPC and they were granted notional regularization w.e.f. 01.07.2003. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also indicated that in the list of 93 persons, who were appointed on regular basis as Assistants w.e.f. 01.07.2003, the petitioner, as per his seniority, would be above Serial No.33 (Sh. Ajeet Singh) and below Serial No.32 (Smt. Manjula Verma). 7. The learned counsel for the respondent supported the decision of the Tribunal and submitted that there was no case for any interference. However, considering the circumstances, we feel that since the appointments of Assistants on regular basis against the select list for the year 2003 was made w.e.f. 01.07.2003, the petitioner ought not to have been ignored in the DPC held in September-October, 2009. There are two reasons for this. The first reason is that on 01.07.2003 the petitioner had not retired and persons junior to him have been given appointments as Assistants on regular basis from that date. There are two reasons for this. The first reason is that on 01.07.2003 the petitioner had not retired and persons junior to him have been given appointments as Assistants on regular basis from that date. The second reason being that even persons who had retired prior to the convening of the DPC in September-October, 2009, have been considered by the DPC and have been given appointment as Assistants of the CSS on a regular basis against the select list for the year 2003. Such persons being Smt. Yashwanti Devi, Sh. Kamla Ram and Smt. Sunita Rohella, about whom we have already mentioned above. 8. In view of the foregoing, as well as the decision of a Division Bench in the case of P.G. George (supra), we are clear that the petitioner ought not to have been ignored from the DPC convened in September and October, 2009 for the select list of 2003. Consequently, we direct the respondent to convene a review DPC for the year 2003 and consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as an Assistant of the CSS on a regular basis against the select list of the year 2003. If he is found fit then he shall be granted notional appointment as an Assistant of the CSS w.e.f. 01.07.2003 and shall be given consequential retiral benefits. However, since the petitioner is no more, the benefit would be given to the widow namely Smt. Resham Devi. The review DPC be convened within six weeks from today. 9. The writ petition is allowed as above. There shall be no order as to costs.