w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Manmil Das v/s Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Department of India, Ministry of Communication, Information & Technology, New Delhi & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LTD [Active] CIN = U74140DL1992PLC048211

Company & Directors' Information:- THE INDIA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999TN1919PTC000911

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65990MH1941PTC003461

Company & Directors' Information:- NEW COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U31909GJ1989PTC012512

Company & Directors' Information:- C H C INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200WB2001PLC093126

Company & Directors' Information:- V R INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900MH2000PTC128632

Company & Directors' Information:- K. K. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200OR2009PTC011100

Company & Directors' Information:- S A I S INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72100TN2010PTC075284

Company & Directors' Information:- S H INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200DL2005PTC135610

    Original Application No. 040/00126 of 2015

    Decided On, 13 September 2017

    At, Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. MOHD. HALEEM KHAN
    By, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. S.N. TERDAL
    By, JUDICIAL MEMBER

    For the Applicant: H.K. Das, Advocate. For the Respondents: Kakoli Saikia, Addl. C.G.S.C.



Judgment Text

S.N. Terdal, Judicial Member

This O.A. is filed seeking relief of setting aside the Office Order No.B2/Manmi Das/08/(L) dated 14.10.2014, promoting toe Group-D post from amongst GDS.

2. The facts of the case are that the Applicant was appointed as Extra Departmental Letter Box Peon on 23.1.1987. Thereafter he was posted as E.D. Packer till 2003. Since, he has been working as Group B employee on adhoc basis as the Respondents are extending his adhoc service from time to time. As per the service rules, the promotion of E.D. to Group D cadre is on the basis of seniority subject to satisfactory service, and that vacancies occurring in every calendar year has to be calculated in the month of January of each year and DPC is to be held every year to fill up the vacancies. Also as per rules, the E.D. staff who is above the age of 50 years (55 years in case of SC/ST) as on the date of DPC shall not be eligible for promotion to Group-D. But as Respondents did not convene the DPC for several years as per rules, as such those who attained or crossed the age of 50 years during the year when DPCs were not hold, could not get the promotion.

3. The Applicant was aggrieved by non consideration of his case for promotion because of not holding regular year wise DPC in 2006. The Applicant had crossed 50 years as on 1.4.2007 when the DPC was held in 2007. The Applicant had earlier filed O.A. No. 19 of 2008 before this Tribunal. The O.A. No. 19/2008 was dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated 21.05.2009. The Applicant approached the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court against the said order of this tribunal. The Hon’ble High Court by order dated 18.06.2013, setting aside the order of this Tribunal dated 21.5.2009 directed the Respondents to convene a Review DPC as on 01.7.2006 and to consider of those who were in the zone of consideration including the Applicant for promotion. In compliance of the said order of the Hon’ble High Court dated 18.6.2013, the Respondents held review DPC as on 1.7.2006 and issued the letter dated 14.10.2014 promoting 3 E.Ds. to Group D post. The Applicant has challenged the said order dated 14.10.2014 in this O.A., on the ground that Shri Jamini Kr. Das, who has been promoted was over-aged as on 1.7.2006 but by wrongly showing his Date of Birth as 8.5.1958 he was promoted. His correct Date of Birth as per the Seniority List is 01.5.1949 as such he was over-aged as on 1.7.2006. In his rejoinder, the Applicant has further corroborated, based on the reply given by the Respondents to his RTI application, about the fact of Date of Birth of said Jamini Kr. Das being 1.5.1949. He further stated that Shri Hahiram Nath, who was promoted under the impugned order had already been promoted in the year 2011. As such, he should not have been considered again the said Review DPC. He further stated that Shri Sunil Chanda Mandal who was also promoted under the said Review DPC under the impugned order dated 14.10.2014 had declined to take promotion and had foregone his promotion because of his ill-health. On these grounds the Applicant submitted that the Review DPC is bad in law.

4. Heard Mr. H.K. Das, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the Applicant and Ms. Kakoli Saikia, learned Addl. C.G.S.C. for the Respondents, perused the pleadings and all the documents produced by the parties.

5. From the perusal of the Seniority List and the reply given by the Respondents to the Applicant’s RTI application, it is clear that Shri Jamini Kr. Das, had crossed 50 years of age as on 01.07.2006. To that extent, the impugned order No.B2/Manmi Das/08/(L) dated 14.10.2014, is bad in law. In so far as Shri Hahiram Nath is concerned, though he was promoted in the year 2011 but as on 01.7.2006, he was working in feeder post. As such, considering him for promotion as on 1.7.2006 cannot be faulted. In so far, Shri Sunil Chandra Mandal, who was promoted by same impugned order dated 14.10.2014 cannot be faulted though he may have declined and foregone the promotion on the basis of his ill-health.

6. In view of the facts stated abo

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ve, and in view of the rules applicable for the said promotion the impugned order No.B2/Manmi Das/08/(L) dated 14.10.2014 is erroneous in respect of promotion of Shri Jamini Kumar Das only and as such one post of GDS to Group-D becomes available as on 1.7.2006. 7. Accordingly, O.A. is allowed partly and the Respondents are directed to hold Review DPC as on 1.7.2006 to fill up the said one post as per rules. 8. No order as to costs.
O R