AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
Per: Sangam Narain Srivastava, Member (A)
The present Original Application has been filed by the applicants praying for the following reliefs:
“8(a) This Hon'ble Tribunal will be pleased to call for the records and proceedings of the case which led to the passing of the impugned Order dated 02.04.2015 (Annx."A1" hereto) and after going through its legality, propriety and constitutional validity be pleased to quash and set Central Administrative Tribunalaside the same with all consequential benefits.
(b)This Hon'ble Tribunal will be pleased to hold and declare that the promotion order dated 13.10.2005 was a regular promotion after holding the regular Departmental test and selection and the condition of Ad-hoc basis was not required and necessary to be incorporated in the said Promotion order dated 13.10.2005.
IN THE ALTERNATIVE :
(b)(i) This Hon'ble Tribunal will be pleased to Order and direct the Respondents to regularize the Applicants in the post of Junior Engineer Gr-II with effect from 13.10.2005 with all consequential benefits of Seniority and promotion etc.
(c)This Hon'ble Tribunal will be pleased to hold and declare that the Applicants are entitled to continue as Junior Engineer Grade-II alongwith other promotional benefits of their working on the post of Junior Engineer Grade-II for a period of 10 years.
(d)Any other and further orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, proper and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Central Administrative Tribunal(e) Costs of this Original Application may be provided for;
The facts are that the applicants, nine in number, were working as Fitter Grade-II. They were promoted on 13th October, 2005 (Annexure A-2) to the post of Junior Engineer Grade-II on ad-hoc basis after undergoing a selection process. Subsequently, the applicants were reverted to their original posts of Fitter vide order dated 2nd April, 2015 (Annexure A-1).
It is the contention of the applicants that their suitability had been judged before promoting them to the post of Junior Engineer Grade-II and, therefore, there was no justification for appointing them on ad-hoc basis in the first place. It is further submitted that they were reverted without being given any notice.
It is also contended that no selection test was conducted after their promotion, although it was necessary to do so on an annual basis. The applicants further contend that similar ad-hoc promotions had been made in the office of the Chief Works Manager, Parel, under the Western Railway, which came to be regularized vide order dated 1st July, 2010 and, therefore, being similarly placed, the applicants claim that they should also have been confirmed in the promoted posts on regular basis.
It is the applicants’ contention that no justification for their reversion after 10 years has been given in the impugned order. It is also argued that the reversion would result into loss of pay and status for the applicants.
It is further contended that the reversion would require the applicants to compete against ineligible juniors for the accumulated vacancies for the same promotional posts, which they have enjoyed for 10 years.
It is also contended that Rule 216(2)(b) permits ad-hoc promotions only in leave vacancies and short duration vacancies up to four months and, therefore, the continuation for 10 years on ad-hoc basis should lead to automatic regularization of promotion.
After notice, the respondents have filed their reply.
It is contended that the applicants had been promoted purely on ad-hoc basis and that no rights of regular promotion accrued to them by virtue of such promotion. It is further submitted that the contention of the applicants regarding non-conduct of selections is completely baseless and contrary to the record. The respondents have furnished, in their reply, details of various panels declared for regular promotion subsequent to the grant of ad-hoc promotions. It is contended that regular panels, after conducting suitability and competency tests, were declared in the years 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2015, which included both Ranker Quota and LDCE Quota.
It is stated that the applicants were therefore provided opportunities for regular promotion, but they failed to avail themselves of such opportunities. It is further submitted that ad-hoc promotions are only for four months unless the concerned employees qualify in the selection of regular posts.
It is argued that that the action taken by the other authorities cannot be compared with the present case, as the basis on which the employees concerned were regularized is not available. It is also submitted that the applicants did not make any representation against their reversion.
We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for the respondents and have perused the pleadings and documents available on record.
We find that by order dated 13th October, 2005, the applicants were promoted to the post of Junior Engineer Grade-II on an ad-hoc basis. The said order clearly mentions that the promotion was on “AD-HOC BASIS” and would not confer upon the applicants any right to seniority, regular promotion or continuation on ad-hoc basis beyond four months, unless they qualified in the selection for the regular post of TXR/Junior Engineer Grade-II.
From the above, it is abundantly clear that the applicants were aware that their promotion was strictly on ad-hoc basis and that they were required to qualify the selection of regular post of TXR/Junior Engineer Grade-II for regular promotion. Though, it has been claimed by the applicants that no selection for regular post was conducted after the grant of ad-hoc promotion, the records reveal otherwise. The selections for the regular post were conducted in several years but the said opportunity was not availed by the applicants.
In these circumstances, we find no merit in the contentions raised by the applicants. No interference is, therefore, warranted with the action of the respondents in reverting the applicants to their earlier posts.
The Original Application, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No costs.