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

Manmohan Thakur v/s The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, To the Government of India, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi & Others

Company & Directors' Information:- A G RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U85120TG2014PTC093661

Company & Directors' Information:- S. R. B. AGRICULTURAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29219WB2007PTC113895

Company & Directors' Information:- P K THAKUR & CO. P. LTD. [Active] CIN = U74210WB1989PTC047496

Company & Directors' Information:- I AND D RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2003PTC118439

Company & Directors' Information:- K P O COUNCIL OF INDIA [Active] CIN = U85300DL2020NPL368920

Company & Directors' Information:- MANMOHAN CORPN PVT (INDIA) LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U67120WB1959PTC024132

Company & Directors' Information:- THE INDIAN CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65993TN1946PTC000988

Company & Directors' Information:- J B RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74920MH2005PTC158461

Company & Directors' Information:- J AND J AGRICULTURAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U01122DL1992PTC049440

Company & Directors' Information:- U 2 RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U73100MH2008PTC179902

Company & Directors' Information:- AGRICULTURAL CORPORATION LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U99999MH1950PLC010499

Company & Directors' Information:- THE THAKUR AND COMPANY LIMITED [Liquidated] CIN = U22219MH1933PLC010274

    Original Application No. 043/00059 of 2020

    Decided On, 02 February 2021

    At, Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati


    For the Applicant: D. Hazarika, Advocate. For the Respondents: Jupitara Das, ICAR SC.

Judgment Text

Order (Oral):Manjula Das, Judicial Member.1. This O.A. has been preferred by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with the following reliefs:-“8.1 To direct the official Respondents to reconsider the claim of the applicant on the basis of seniority and grant of Temporary Status w.e.f. 01.09.93 and on the basis of the circulars and thereafter to give the status of Skilled Supporting Staff (Grade-I) as given to his juniors;8.2 To direct the Official Respondents to give pensionary benefit to the applicant on the basis of the circular and rules and as laid down by the Courts.8.3 To pass any other appropriate order (s) as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case;8.4 Cost of the application.8.5 Any other relief (s) that the Applicant may be entitled to.”3. Ms. D. Hazarika, learned counsel appeared for the applicant. None appeared on behalf of the respondents though written statement to the O.A. was filed on 08.01.2020 by the standing counsel for the ICAR.4. The basic grievance raised by the applicant orally before the Court are:-(i) That despite the applicant got conferment of temporary status, however, permanent absorption has not been made;(ii) That the junior to the applicant have been absorbed on permanent basis and got the benefit by depriving the applicant;(iii) That it the applicant gets the benefit of this permanent absorption, he would be benefited for pensionary benefits but due to non-consideration of the respondent authorities, the applicant was denied from all the benefits.5. For proper adjudication, we have perused the written statement filed by the respondent authorities where in para 12, the respondent authorities reiterates Annexure ‘A’ to the O.A. which says that – sufficient opportunities were given to the applicant. The cause of non-selection of the applicant is also mentioned in the said Annexure ‘A’.6. Then we come to the Annexure-A, page 20 to the O.A. i.e. Reply to CPGRAM complaint made by Shri Manmohan Thakur (applicant) vide Regd. No. PMOPG/E/2019/0150490 and PMOPG/E/2019/0673464 and the same is being reproduced below:-1. In the year 2006 based on the approval of vacancy of 3 S.S. Gr. I by the Council and standing instruction of the Council, DPC cum Selection Committee was formed wherein they have selected 3 out of 5 eligible TSM at that time.2. The next interview was called vide RC (R) 18/2005 dated 23.4.2010 for 6 vacant post. In total, 21 candidates were called for an interview based on Council’s letter No. 21-3/2006-CDN dated 18.10.2006. Shri Manmohan Thakur was also invited by the duly constituted Selection Committee. And based performance/merit, the Selection Committee offered appointment to 5 suitable TSM out of 20 applicants appeared.3. Again, the circular calling for applications from all eligible TSM was circulated vide No. RC(R) 18/2005 dated 27.09.2011. Vide Director’s order a Screening cum Selection Committee was constituted on 29.01.2011. The Committee which sat on 10.01.2012 received 17 applications. Out of 17 applicants, 9 have requisite qualification and top 7 were given regularization based on notional seniority given as per the available vacant post.4. In the year 2014 again the Selection Committee sat for regularization of TSM but by that time Shri Manmohan Thakur had already been retired as TSM i.e. on 30th September, 2012.Under the above circumstance, it appears that no injustice has been done to Shri Manmohan Thakur, Ex-TSM of this Institute.7. In the present O.A., it is also noted that the applicant is praying to reconsider his claim on the basis of seniority and grant of Temporary Status w.e.f. 01.09.1993. Thus, it is candid clear that the applicant was confirmed Temporary Status vide order No. RC(G)25/95 dated 09.01.2002, Annexure-A/5, page 29 to the O.A. which is being reproduced below:-“The Director, ICAR Research Complex for NEH Region, Umiam is pleased to grant Temporary Status to Shri. Man Mohan Thakur, Casual Labour effect from 1.9.1993.He is entitled for all the benefits contained in the Appendix of OM No. 51016/2/90-Estt(G) dated 10.09.1993 of Department of Personnel & Training as admissible as per Rules.Shri. Man Mohan Thakur will be under the administrative control of Senior Farm Manager.”8. Thus from the above facts and circumstances and by taking into account all the relevant points, we do not find any injustice done by the respondent authorities towards the applicant. Whatever benefits entitled by the applicant has already been gran

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ted to him vide order dated 09.01.2002, as discussed above. Moreover, if there was any further grievance, the applicant ought to have knock and approached before this Tribunal at that relevant time. But after 21 years as well as after retirement of 8 years, the applicant filed the instant O.A. where the grievance of the applicant by way of complaint was also redressed by the respondent authorities.9. Hence the O.A. is devoid of merit and accordingly, same is hereby dismissed.10. No order as to costs.