UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Vs. SARITA KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/Chief Controller of Accounts is aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.03.2017, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi on an Original Application No.3478/2016 filed by the respondent praying inter alia for directions to consider her for absorption to the post of Accountant, at par with other similarly situated persons who have been duly absorbed by them.

(2.) The facts of the case, as culled out from the records, are that the petitioners had issued an advertisement on 17.09.2011, inviting applications for filling up vacancies in the cadre of Accountants on deputation basis. The said advertisement had clearly stated that the selected candidates could be considered for permanent absorption after successful completion of two years of deputation. In pursuance to the aforesaid advertisement, the respondent had applied and was duly selected to the post of Accountant on deputation basis. She joined the said post in the office of petitioner No.3, on 20.03.2012. Initially, the respondent was appointed for a tenure of one year, which was extended for a further period of one year, vide order dated 20.03.2013. On 13.12.2013, the respondent submitted a representation to the petitioner No.3, seeking permanent absorption. Vide a communication dated 9/18.09.2014, her parent cadre i.e., the Ministry of Micro Small and Medium Enterprises gave her a no objection for absorption.

(3.) Initially, on 21.10.2014, the petitioner No.2 issued a communication stating therein that the competent authority had decided to put on hold absorption of all deputationists. By another communication dated 18.11.2014, the said order was directed to be kept in abeyance. Subsequently, vide order dated 23.07.2015, yet again, the absorption of all the deputationists in the Central Civil Accounts Service (CCAS) was put on hold and directions were issued to repatriate all deputationists to their parent departments on completion of their deputation term. As a result, vide order dated 10.08.2015, the petitioner No.3 informed the respondent that her case for absorption was turned down.