S K VAISH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Delay condoned.

(2.) This Special Leave Petition has been filed against the order dated February 15, 1996 made in O.A. No. 978/92 of the CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi. This admitted position is that the petitioner after his promotion as Assistant Engineer in Telecom Engineering Service Group B on April 16, 1979 was kept under suspension and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. On June 30, 1986, punishment was imposed by way of compulsory retirement. The same came to be challenged by way of an appeal. On appeal, the Department directed that the punishment be treated partly as suspension and partly as in service by proceedings dated February 16, 1979 (sic). When the petitioner challenged the same in O.A. No.1690/90, by order dated February 14, 1992, the same was allowed and direction was given to treat him as on duty for all purposes including pay and allowances. After reinstatement, the petitioner retired from service on attaining superannuation on May 31, 1992. He had prior to that filed representation for crossing his efficiency bar. In the impugned order, the Tribunal has held that the D.P.C. had considered his case for efficiency bar and found him not fit and, therefore, he is not entitled to the relief. Thus, this special leave petition.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when he was reinstated into service the efficiency bar was required to be considered after taking into account his subsequent record. What was stated was adverse entries for the year 1979-90, 1980-81, 1981-82. There was no reconsideration in the light of the direction issued by the Ministry in the letter dated September 18, 1991 in O.M. No. 7 (28)/EIII/91 that all pending cases should be considered to bring the pending cases of the employee so as to bring them on par with the scale of pay recommended by the 4th Pay Commission, (sic) the petitioner had given a representation but the same was not considered; even direction given to produce the record was not followed. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have drawn adverse entries and directed that the petitioner was entitled to cross the efficiency bar and he also contended that sealed cover procedure as is invoked that direction should also be considered for the crossing of the efficiency bar and kept pending when the departmental enquiry was pending against him.