Allowed

Rajeshwari P Murthy v. the Controller General of Defence Accounts

CAT1 Jul 2014O.A./534/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Central Administrative Tribunal held that the applicant was eligible for promotion to Junior Time Scale based on her seniority in the Departmental Promotion Committee proceedings. Since she retired before her regular turn, the court directed the respondents to grant her notional promotion with all consequential benefits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondents to grant notional promotion to the applicant with all consequential benefits.

Rajeshwari P Murthy vs the Controller General of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | CAT (2014)

¶1

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

¶2

BANGALORE BENCH; BANGALORE

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.534/2013

¶4

DATED THIS THE DAY OF 01®' JULY, 2014

¶5

HON'BLE SHRi G.SHANTHAPPA .... MEMBER (J)

¶6

HON'BLE SHRI RUDHRA GANGADHARAN ....MEMBER (A)

¶7

Smt.Rajeshwari P. Murthy, w/o. Y.G.Prakash Murthy, Aged 60 years,

¶8

Senior Accounts Officer / 8309447 Residing at # 68/1, RMV Stage, Nagashetty Halii,

¶9

Bengaiuru-94.

¶10

....Applicant

¶11

(By counsel Shri T.P.Premanath)
i v/s.

¶12

The Controller General of Defence Accounts, OfTice of the Contrpller General of Defence Accounts,! No.AN/lll Section, Ulan Batar Road, Ralam, Delhi Cantt-110 010.

¶13

The Union of India,'

¶14

Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, j New Delhi -110 001. ; Respondents

¶15

(By counsel Shri M.Vasudev Rao, Sr.GGSC)

¶16

'order (ORAU

¶17

SHRI G.SHANTHAPPA '.MEMBER fJ): I I I

¶18

Case called. None appears for the applicant. We have heard the

¶19

learned counsel for the respondents.

¶20

The above Original . I . Application is filed under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act] 1985 seeking the following reliefs;

¶21

i. To call for the rjelevant records as to on what basis the four officers and the said C.B.Yadav and Vinod Anand were promoted and on which promotion order date/list/circular issued by DPC earlier to 01.09.2012 they were promoted. Consequently direct the 1®' I respondent to release a promotion order promoting the applicant vide effect from 12.07.2012 having submitted I the choice station or as on 31.07.2012 being the date of retirement of !the applicant. Further direct the 1®' I respondent to provide all the benefits that the applicant is entitled pursuant to the promotion as JTS. i

¶22

ii. To quash and; set aside the impugned letter No.AN1/1361/RPM/REP dated 30.01.2013 (Annexure-A-5) issued by the 1®' respondent is arbitrary, discriminatory, I unjust and unfair and non-est.

¶23

¶24

The brief facts according to the applicant are; the applicant rendered her service as Senior Accounts Officer at AO GE (N) MEG & CENTRE Bangalore, considering her service and seniority and also according to the roaster applicant was supposed to be promoted from Senior Accounts Officer to JTS (Junior Time Scale) of IDAS much earlier to her retirement, dated 31.07.2012. The procedure adopted by the department is unique in promoting the officers. The above application is against the procedure adopted by the 1®' respondent in promoting the applicant to the post of JTS-AGDA immediately on adhoc basis prior to her I superannuation much less immediately when choice station was indicated. The applicant got issued a legal notice on 20.12.2012, the 1®' respondent issued untenable reply dated 30.01.2013, aggrieved by the same the ! applicant has approached this Tribunal.

¶25

The applicant has preferred this application to determine as to on what basis the four officers and said C.B.Yadav and Vinod Anand were promoted and on which promotion order date/list/circular issued by DPC ! earlier to 01.09.2012 they were promoted. Consequently direct the 1®' respondent to release a promotion order promoting the applicant w.e.f.12.07.2012 having submitted the choice station or as on 31.07.2012 ! being the date of retirerhent of the applicant. Further to direct the 1®' respondent to provide all the benefits that the applicant is entitled pursuant to the promotion to JTS. ;

¶26

¶27

The respondents have filed reply statement along with DPC proceedings and the order of the promotion issued to the employees who . are eligible for promotion. Admittedly, the DPC was conducted on 22.06.2012 and 23.06.2012 for promotion to the Junior Time Scale (Group 'A') in the Pay Band of Rs.15600-39100 with Grade Pay Rs.5400/-. The Committee considered the selection of officers for promotion to the said post. The vacancy for the year 2012-13 is General-69, SC-04 and ST-12, total 65 vacancies were considered. Admittedly the applicant is at I SI.No.55. As on the date of DPC proceedings, the applicant was in service and she was superannuated on 31.07.2012. The respondents submit that the DPC for adhoc promotions for 2012-13 has not been held and the adhoc promotions are not' made as a matter of routine on year to year basis, but are made only in exigencies of service whenever such an occasion arises and with the Government's specific approval, therefore, whereas in the case of regular promotions, the same are made yearly on routine basis. After the approval of the competent Authority for adhoc promotion an internal DPC is held which considers the eligible officers for adhoc promotions. The officers are appointed on regular basis only after the approval of the recommendations of the DPC conducted by the UPSC. The officers are promoted only based on the recommendations of a duly I constituted DPC.

¶28

As stated earlier proposal for adhoc promotion for the vacancy year 2012-13 was mooted. However the approval for the same was not received. Hence no adhoc promotions were made. The impugned letter

¶29

¶30

was issued for administrative planning with an intention not to delay the adhoc promotions of those officers who have been adjudged by the UPSC.

¶31

We have carefully considered the pleadings on record and submission of the learned counsel for the respondents. We perused the DPC proceedings at Annexure-R-1. Admittedly the applicant was in service as on 22.06.2012 and 23.06.2012. On the date on which the DPC was conducted there were 69 General vacancies, whereas the applicant is at SI.No.55. The respondents have submitted in the reply statement that the applicant was not promo ed to JTS even on regular basis because the applicant had retired or 31.07.2012 before her turn for the regular promotion came up. The applicant's turn for said regular promotion was due only w.e.f.01.09.2012 (the date from which her immediate senior and immediate junior serving Were promoted on regular basis). Had the officer not retired on 31.07.2012, she would have been promoted to the JTS on regular basis in her turn v).e.f.01.09.2012.

¶32

We have carefully considered the above mentioned reply statement. When there are vacancies available and filled up based on i DPC proceedings, the jappiicant is at SI.No.55, that being the fact statement made by the respondents as above is contrary to the records. Accordingly, we ignore the statement of the respondents.

¶33

For the foregoing reasons we have considered the facts of this case, since the applicantjwas eligible for promotion in DPC proceedings held on 22.06.2012 anci 23.06.2012, considering her position is at SI.No.55, the applicant nas established her case for grant of relief. Accordingly, we direct the respondents to give notional promotion to the applicant with all consequential benefits.

¶34

With the above observation Original Application is disposed of.

¶35

No order as to costs.

¶36

(RUDHRA GANGADHARAN) MEMBER (A)

¶37

(G.^HANTHAPPA) MEMBER (J)

¶38

pmj

Rajeshwari P Murthy v. the Controller General of Defence Accounts

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeshwari P Murthy v. the Controller General of Defence Accounts

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri C Puttaswamy Others vs Union of India and Others

Shri Mylarashetty vs the Union of India Others

Smt Purnima Saikia vs Ddk

MD Aftab Ali vs M/O Defence

Sri M Joy Singh vs M/O Personnel,Public Grievances and Pensions

Bharati Rai vs M/O Home Affairs

Rajashekar Auradkar vs the Commandant Managing Director

M Srinivasa vs the Commandant Managing Director