PRAVEEN SURI Vs. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant of this O.A. joined the respondents as Junior Stenographer on 09.09.1981. On 11.11.1987, he was promoted as PA in the revised pay scale of Rs.1400 -2300 as per the IV Central Pay Commission and subsequently upgraded to the pay scale of Rs.1640 -2900. After passing the Limited Departmental Examination he was appointed as Assistant Director on 20.02.1992. On the other hand, the respondent No. 4, whose seniority the applicant is disputing was according to him appointed as a Stenographer Typist on 02.11.1983. The applicant has alleged that the official respondents granted retrospective promotion in the pay scale of Rs.1640 -2900 to respondent No. 4 w.e.f. 01.04.1987 and promoted him as Assistant Director w.e.f. 07.08.1991. The applicant submitted several representations regarding wrongful promotion of the respondent No. 4. Finally on 19.01.1996/30.01.1996 the respondent No. 1 reverted respondent No. 4 to the post of PA in the pay scale of Rs.1400 -2300. On 26.06.2011, he was, however, reinstated to the post of Assistant Director pursuant to orders of Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal. In 2004, the official respondents circulated provisional list of Assistant Directors in which the applicant was shown senior to respondent No. 4. This seniority list was not challenged by anyone and some Assistant Directors were also promoted as Deputy Directors on the basis of this seniority list. However, in February, 2007, the official respondents again circulated a provisional seniority list of Assistant Directors in which respondent No. 4 was shown senior to the applicant without assigning any reason for deviating from the seniority position already assigned in the seniority list of 2004. Seriously dissatisfied with this position, the applicant preferred several representations to the official respondents requesting them to assign correct seniority position to him. Official respondents on 15.05.2007 informed the applicant that the matter has been referred to DoP&T and further action would be taken on receipt of their advice. However, without waiting for the advice of DoP&T, the official respondents convened a DPC meeting and promoted some Assistant Directors to the post of Deputy Directors based on the seniority list of 2007. This despite the fact that the official respondents were under statutory obligation as per rules to decide the pending representations before acting on the impugned seniority list. On 07.02.2011 the official respondents again circulated provisional seniority list of Assistant Directors in which the respondent No. 4 was shown senior to the applicant as before. The applicant again represented but the official respondents did not respond. The applicant then sought information through RTI regarding Recruitment Rules and service particulars etc. vide his application dated 23.01.2012. He also served a legal notice on the respondents on 12.06.2012. However, the official respondents have neither accepted his demand for correcting the seniority nor have disposed of his representation. Hence, he has filed this O.A. before us seeking the following relief: -

(2.) THE contention of the applicant is that the action of the respondents suffers from bureaucratic high handedness, arbitrariness, violation of principles of natural justice and non -application of mind. He has stated that he had worked with the respondents with utmost sincerity and devotion but they have not given proper recognition to his services despite the fact that his performance has been outstanding. The respondents, according to him, have not acted timely in merging of establishments functioning at various stations under the banner of SNIPES Board, and, therefore, could not evolve a proper system of fixing inter -se -seniority and protecting the interest of genuine employees. They have adopted policy of pick and choose with regard to filling up vacancies at higher levels without following the Recruitment Rules. Consequently, the applicant was wrongfully denied his rightful position in the seniority list. The applicant has further stated that he has been victimized to an extreme extent by the respondents and has therefore been forced to approach this Tribunal for justice.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 4 in his reply has stated that he had challenged his reversion from the post of Assistant Director to the post of PA in Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal and his O.A. was allowed on 09.01.1998. The operative part of their order reads as follows: -