Dismissed

Suresh Khatri S/O Late Shri Daulat Ram Khatri v. Union of India

Rajasthan HC13 Dec 2019CW/4215/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed two writ petitions challenging the Debts Recovery Tribunal's dismissal of applications regarding seniority. The Court held that under Rule 7 of the 1998 Rules, seniority for officers absorbed from the same parent department is governed by prior appointment dates, not dates of regular appointment in the Tribunal. Thus, the Tribunal's order was upheld.

What did the court decide?

Stay applications and writ petitions dismissed; seniority of respondent No.3 upheld over petitioner based on earlier appointment in parent department.

Suresh Khatri S/O Late Shri Daulat Ram… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶2

BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4215/2019

¶4

Suresh Khatri S/o Late Shri Daulat Ram Khatri, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Plot No.54/121, Heerapath, Mansarovar, Jaipur Presently Working As Assistant, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union Of India, Through Secretary To The Government Of India, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) Jeevan Deep Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001.

¶8

The Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal, S.F.E. 3/4 Nehru Palace, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

¶9

Shri Vinod Singh Rauthan, Section Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, S.F.E. 3/4 Nehru Palace, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

Connected With

¶12

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4200/2019

¶13

Suresh Khatri S/o Late Shri Daulat Ram Khatri, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Plot No.54/121, Heerapath, Mansarovar, Jaipur Presently Working As Assistant, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur Bench.

¶14

----Petitioner

¶15

Versus

¶16

Union Of India, Through Secretary To The Government Of India, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) Jeevan Deep Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001.

¶17

The Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal, S.F.E. 3/4 Nehru Palace, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

¶18

Shri Vinod Singh Rauthan, Section Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, S.F.E. 3/4 Nehru Palace, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

¶19

----Respondents

¶20

For Petitioner(s)

¶21

: Shri Rajendra Prasad, Sr. Counsel assisted by Ms Jyotsna Khatri

(2 of 8)

[CW-4215/2019]

For Respondent(s)

: Shri Rajendra Prasad Sharma with Mrs. Sanju Saini for UOI Shri Amit Mathur

¶26

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶27

Order

¶28

13/12/2019

¶29

BY THE COURT : (PER HON’BLE DHADDHA, J.)

¶30

Since both the writ petitions have arisen out of the same impugned order dated 16.10.2018, they are being decided by this common order.

¶31

Both these writ petitions have been preferred by petitioner Suresh Khatri against the impugned order dated 16.10.2018 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short “the Tribunal”) whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the Original Applications (OAs).

¶32

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the Rajasthan High Court, Principal Seat at Jodhpur vide order dated 17.7.1986. The petitioner joined his duties as such w.e.f. 22.7.1986. The petitioner was transferred to the District & Sessions Judge, Sikar vide order dated 23.7.1986. He was again transferred to the District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur vide order dated 8.2.1988 from where he was sent on deputation to the Debts Recovery Tribunal vide order dated 7.11.1994.

¶33

In compliance of the order dated 7.11.1994, the petitioner joined his duties in the office of the Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal, S.F.E. 3/4, Nehru Palace, Tonk Road, Jaipur (respondent No.2) on 10.11.1994. The petitioner was promoted

¶34

(3 of 8)

¶35

[CW-4215/2019]

¶36

as Upper Division Clerk vide order dated 5.5.1995. Thereafter, he was absorbed in the office of respondent No.2 vide order dated 3.3.2000. The respondent No.3 was also sent on deputation to the office of respondent No.2 vide order dated 16.12.1994 and he was also further promoted to the post of UDC vide order dated 14.12.1995 i.e. 7 months after than the date of promotion of the petitioner as UDC. The petitioner and the respondent No.3, both were absorbed in the office of the respondent No.2 on 3.3.2000. Both were appointed on the temporary basis in the Court of District & Sessions Judge and also they were appointed in substantive capacity in the Debts Recovery Tribunal on 3.3.2000. Moreover, no seniority list was ever prepared by the department i.e. the Court of District & Sessions Judge. The petitioner was further promoted to the post of Assistant on ad-hoc basis vide order dated 19.5.2000 and he was subsequently regularized on the post of Assistant vide order dated 28.3.2002. The respondent No.3 was also promoted on the post of Accounts Assistant on adhoc basis.

¶37

The respondent No.2 issued a provisional seniority list of Assistants on 31.5.2006 whereby the petitioner was shown as senior to respondent No.3. On being aggrieved with the provisional seniority list, the respondent No.3 filed objections on 16.6.2006. The petitioner also submitted representation on 31.7.2006 clarifying therein about all the circumstances. The respondent No.2 without considering the submissions of the petitioner issued final seniority list on 24.1.2011 placing the respondent No.3 above the petitioner in the final seniority list. Department Promotion Committee was convened on 2.5.2011 for making promotion to the post of Section Officer from amongst the

¶38

(4 of 8)

¶39

[CW-4215/2019]

¶40

Assistants and the name of respondent No.3 was considered while ignoring the petitioner in total contravention of Recruitment Rules of 2001 only the ground that the petitioner was shown junior to the respondent No.3 in the final seniority list.

¶41

Aggrieved with the action of the respondent No.2, the petitioner preferred OA No.384/2011 challenging the final seniority list and promotion order of the respondent No.3. The said Original Application was disposed of on 30.8.2011 with a direction to the respondents to decide the petitioner’s legal notice by way of passing a reasoned order. Consequent thereto, the respondent No.2 decided the legal notice of the petitioner and rejected the same vide order dated 1.12.2011.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal had passed the impugned order on completely erroneous basis resulting into misconstruction of underlying facts and misapplication of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents No.1 and 2 had not considered the representation of the petitioner and only on the basis of the contentions of the respondent No.3 issued final seniority list on 24.1.2011 placing the respondent No.3 above the petitioner which was also against all canons of justice, against their own rules of seniority and also against the general rules of seniority.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no seniority list was ever prepared by the parent department i.e. the Court of District & Sessions Judge and therefore there was no question of disturbing any seniority in the parent department which is pivot based on which the petitioner’s original application had been dismissed by the learned Tribunal. He submits that the petitioner as well as respondent No.3, both were absorbed in the

¶44

(5 of 8)

¶45

[CW-4215/2019]

¶46

Tribunal on the same date i.e. 3.3.2000. Hence, both should be treated to have been appointed on the same date and seniority should be accorded as per applicable rules. He submits that there is no ground for ranking the respondent No.3 senior to the petitioner.

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Assistant Accounts does not find mention in the rule 5 of the Rules of 2001 and as such the respondent No.3 cannot be regularized on the post of Assistant as he was not holding the said post on the date of commencement of the rules. He submits that the respondent No.2 had proposed that disciplinary action be taken against the respondent No.3 for his misconduct in the year 2006 and the respondent No.2 had alleged that the ACRs for the period of 2006-2007 were not available only with the intention that the aforesaid disciplinary action should not be come on record.

¶48

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to consider and appreciate the entire basis of promoting respondent No.3 ahead of the petitioner, was itself wrong unlawful, unconstitutional and therefore untenable. He submits that the final seniority list dated 24.1.2011 is itself unlawful and incorrect in as much as it has been passed in complete ignorance of facts and law in as much as the Rules of 1998 had not been applied and interpreted correctly and in holding that the respondent No.3 is senior to the petitioner, the seniority in the parent department i.e. Court of District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur had been misapplied.

¶49

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the Departmental Promotion Committee while considering the petitioner's

¶50

(6 of 8)

¶51

[CW-4215/2019]

¶52

candidature, has totally ignored the provisions of the Recruitment Rules according to which the petitioner ought to have been given preference as he was having legal experience, apart from a degree in law, which the respondent No.3 does not have. Hence, the petitions be allowed.

¶53

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the learned Tribunal has passed the judgment by taking into consideration the entirety of circumstances including provisions of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (Group ‘C’ & ‘D’ posts) (NonGazetted) and Group B (Non-Gazetted) posts) Recruitment Rules, 2001 including settled canons of service jurisprudence. He submits that the judgment does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity so as to call for any interference. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the learned Tribunal had not committed any error in passing the order dated 16.10.2018. He submitted that the learned Tribunal had passed the order in right perspective. So, the writ petitions be dismissed.

¶54

We have considered the arguments advanced by both the parties, perused the impugned order and material available on record.

¶55

It is undisputed that the petitioner as well as respondent No.3, both originally appointed by the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur on the post of LDC. Both of them were sent on deputation to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur as LDC. Both of them were appointed as UDC on deputation basis. After promulgation of rules regarding deputation and absorption, etc., both of them were absorbed on the post of UDC w.e.f. 03.03.2000. A perusal of the order dated 03.03.2000 reveals that seniority was granted to the respondent No.3 on the basis of his

¶56

(7 of 8)

¶57

[CW-4215/2019]

¶58

appointment prior to the petitioner in the parent organization. Order dated 03.03.2000 was never challenged by the petitioner at any point of time. It is an admitted fact that the respondent No.3 was appointed as LDC prior to the petitioner. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1998 makes a provision that the seniority of the officials absorbed in terms of the sub-rule (1) shall be determined with reference to the dates of their regular appointment to the post concerned. However, a proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 creates an exception to grant of seniority to those officials recruited from the same source and lays down that their seniority held in the parent department shall not be disturbed. Rule 7 of the Rules of 1998 is reproduced as under:-

¶59

“7. Regularisation/Absorption.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of these rules, the persons holding the posts in the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur, on the date of commencement of these rules, either on transfer or on deputation basis and who fulfil the qualifications and experience laid down in these rules and who are considered suitable by the Departmental Promotion Committee shall be eligible for regularization or absorption in the respective grade subject to the condition that such persons exercise their option for the absorption and that their parent Departments do not have any objection to their being absorbed in the Tribunal.

¶60

(2) The seniority of officers mentioned in sub-rule (1) shall be determined with reference to the dates of their regular appointment to the post concerned. Provided that the seniority of officers recruited from the same source and in the posts held by them in the parent Department shall not be disbursed.

¶61

(3) The suitability of persons for absorption may be considered by a Department Promotion Committee.”

¶62

(8 of 8)

¶63

[CW-4215/2019]

¶64

Learned Tribunal had rightly held that the respondent No.3 should be senior on the basis of his prior appointment in the parent organization. After finalization of seniority, a proposal was initiated to fill up one post of Section Officer in which no outsider had applied. A meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee was convened on 02.05.2011 to consider their suitability. The DPC had clearly recorded that both the candidates i.e. petitioner and respondent No.3, were in the fit zone as per the bench mark and therefore their inter-se seniority was considered for the basis of promotion. Since the respondent No.3 was senior as Assistant as per final seniority list dated 24.1.2011, his name was recommended for promotion as Section Officer.

¶65

For the foregoing discussion, we find no infirmity or illegality in the order of the learned Tribunal. Therefore, both the writ petitions being devoid of merit, are liable to be dismissed.

¶66

According, both the writ petitions as well as stay applications stand dismissed.

¶67

A copy of this order be placed in connected writ petition.

¶68

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶69

RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN /17/M35-36

Suresh Khatri S/O Late Shri Daulat Ram Khatri v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Khatri S/O Late Shri Daulat Ram Khatri v. Union of India

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

School of Aeronautics Vs Union of India

Pradeep Kumar Son of Shri Bharat Chand Sharma Vs Principal Secretary

C.S. Chacha S/O Late Shri R.R. Chacha Vs Shri Vaibhav Galriya, Principal Secretary

Smt.Sushil Devi Jain Vs State and Ors.

Prabhu Dayal Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Lekhraj Vs State of Raj and Ors.