SAROJKANTA SARANGI Vs. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO GOVT, OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEGALITY of order dated 30.03.2004 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (for short the Tribunal) in O.A. No. 497 of 1998 has been assailed in both the writ applications. O.A. No. 497 of 1998 was preferred by Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 11529 of 2005 against Union of India, represented through the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry Finance, Department of Revenue as well as Commissioners of Central Excise & Customs, Bhubaneswar -I and II, who have preferred W.P.(C) No. 10571 of 2004, and nine private opposite parties working as Inspector of Central Excise & Customs.

(2.) APPLICANT (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellant') in O.A. No. 497 of 1998, who was initially recruited to the cadre of Stenographer Grade III, was selected and appointed as Inspector of Central Excise & Customs on ad hoc basis with effect from 30.10.1991 pursuant to departmental appointment order dated 30.10.1091. He had to undergo interview and physical test for the selection. Grievance of the applicant in the O.A. was that though the private Respondents were appointed as Inspectors of Central Excise & Customs on ad hoc basis subsequent to him, they were appointed on regular basis earlier. The case of the applicant was overlooked for regular appointment to the cadre of Inspector of Central Excise & Customs because of the fallacious appointment order dated 30.10.1991 issued with regard to his promotion on ad hoc basis and the fallacious order of his promotion to Stenographer Grade il issued on 1.4.1993. Though by order dated 1.4.1993 applicant was promoted as Stenographer Grade II and his services were utilized in the Divisional Office as Stenographer Grade II from 1993 to 1997, the applicant continued to the benefit oy the benefit of pay scale of Inspector of Central Excise & Customs He was later on posted as Inspector of Central Excise & Customs in Kajuriga -I Range with effect from 7.7.1997. In spite of his representations to the authorities to grant him regular promotion to the grade of Inspector of Central Excise & Customs with effect from either 30.10.199' or 11.4.1994 when one of the private Respondents, who was appointed as inspector of Central Excise & Customs on ad hoc basis subsequent to him, was regularly promoted, here was no response to his representations. Therefore, the applicant approached the Tribunal with a prayer to direct the departmental Respondents to regularize his service in the grade of Inspector of Central Excise & Customs with effect from 31.10.1991 and accordingly to fix his seniority and grant other service benefits.

(3.) LEARNED Tribunal upon consideration of rival pleadings and contentions and upon reference to relevant Recruitment Rules, i.e., Central Excise and Land Customs Department Group 'C Posts Recruitment Rules, 1979 (for short the 'Recruitment Rules') observed that post of Cost Recovery Inspector has been created outside the regular cadre post of Inspector. In view of the nature of the post, the Government has rightly taken a stand that these posts cannot be treated as regular sanctioned strength of an organization and as such procedure prescribed to fill up regular sanctioned posts cannot be applied. However, the Tribunal was of the view that the applicant's grievance has arisen because of the lack of clarity in notifying the vacancy of Cost Recovery Inspector. Instead of notifying the post in clear -cut terms, the department used terms which are not in conformity with each other. In the appointment order dated 30.10.1991 it was stated that: