Satish Kumar vs Union Of India And Anr

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The applicant was working as an Architect in the Central Public Works Department (for short, CPWD). The 5th CPC recommended the introduction of Non-Functional Junior Administrative Grade Scheme (for short, NFJAG), subject to certain conditions, w.e.f. 01.01.1996. The implementation thereof became the subject matter of OA No.936/2002 before this Tribunal. The OA was disposed of on 12.12.2002 directing the respondents to redistribute and restructure the posts of Architects into Functional and Non-Functional Grades and to amend the Recruitment Rules, and thereafter, to implement the NFJAG Scheme. It was also directed that wherever such benefit is extended, it shall be only w.e.f. 02.04.2001.

After the restructuring was done and Recruitment Rules were amended, the DPC met on 05.03.2004 and recommended the cases of 29 Architects, including the applicant, for being extended the benefit of NFJAG Scheme. At that stage, one Ms. Suhasini Juneja, who was also an applicant in OA No.936/2002, filed OA No.549/2005, complaining that she was denied the benefit of NFJAG. The denial to her was on the ground that she retired from service, by the time, the DPC met. The OA was allowed on 18.01.2006 directing that the respondents shall consider the case of Ms. Suhasini Juneja also for extension of the benefit of NFJAG. In the process, she was extended the benefit w.e.f. 02.04.2001 on notional basis.

In view of this development, the applicant herein made representation in the year 2011, with a request to extend the same benefit to him, as was given to Ms. Suhasini Juneja. When that was not considered, he filed OA No.3536/2012, which was disposed of on 18.10.2012 directing the respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the representation of the applicant. Through an order dated 17.07.2013, the respondents rejected the representation of the applicant stating that Ms. Suhasini Juneja was senior to all the 29 Architects, and she alone completed five years of regular service as on 01.01.1996. The said order is challenged in this OA.

The applicant contends that when the Scheme itself contemplates that NFJAG shall be extended on completion of five years, he too was entitled to it on completion of five years, and that he was not meted out the same treatment as in the case of Ms. Suhasini Juneja.

The respondents filed counter affidavit opposing the OA. It is stated that though the applicant completed five years of service much before 2004, the convening of DPC was delayed on account of the amendment of Recruitment Rules as directed by the Tribunal, and that this OA is barred by limitation.

We heard Shri J. S. Mann, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.

The applicant was extended the benefit of NFJAG w.e.f. 05.03.2004 along with 28 other Architects. At that time, he did not feel any grievance, nor did the other 28 Architects. It was only Ms. Juneja who felt aggrieved on account of denial of the benefit of NFJAG Scheme on the sole ground that she retired from service. After taking into account, the fact that she was the senior most Architect, and was the only one, to have completed five years of service as on 01.01.1996, the Tribunal granted relief to her, that too mostly on notional basis. It is thereafter that the applicant got the idea of making a claim to be at par with Ms. Juneja.

The respondents have clearly informed the applicant that he cannot compare himself with Ms. Juneja since she alone was the one who completed five years of service as on 01.01.1996, and that he stands on a different footing. Even now the applicant has not been able to point out as to how he can be given the benefit of NFJAG Scheme. Added to that, none of the 28 Architects, who were granted the benefit from 05.03.2004, felt any grievance.

The claim of the applicant is that he is entitled to be extended the benefit of NFJAG with effect from the date on which he completed five years of service. This would have been acceptable, if only, the Scheme provided for automatic extension. It is not in dispute that the benefit can be extended only on being recommended by the DPC. The DPC in this case could not be convened till the year 2004 because the amendment of the rules was in the process, in compliance to the directions of this Tribunal. In the earlier round of litigation in the form of OAs, contempt cases, implementation petitions and writ petitions, the delay in convening of the DPC was in fact condoned. The applicant cannot ventilate his grievance, even if true, at this stage, having failed to respond, almost for half a decade after he was extended the benefit of NFJAG.

The OA is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.