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



P. Ravindran v/s Union of India rep. by Engineer in Chief Directorate General Personnel/EIB, Military Egineer Services Engineer-in-Chief's Branch & Others

    ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.515 OF 2012

    Decided On, 19 June 2012

    At, Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. G. SHANTHAPPA
    By, JUDICIAL MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. R. SATAPATHY
    By, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

    For the Applicants: R.S. Anandan, Advocate. For the Respondents : K. Ramanatha Redd, Advocate.



Judgment Text

Hon'ble Mr. R. Satapathy, Administrative Member

The applicant has come before this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for quashing of the order of the first respondent dated 13.3.2012 in so far as it relates to the posting of the applicant to Hyderabad as AAD and consequently prays for a direction to confer him the Executive Engineer cadre post in the existing vacancies at Chennai.

2. The facts as stated by the applicant in the OA are that he joined the services as a Superintendent B/R Grade-II by direct recruitment under sports quota on 22.9.1981 and the said post subsequently has been redesignated as Junior Engineer. He was then promoted the post of Assistant Engineer in the year 2001 and by the order dated 27.5.2011, he was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer along with 24 others. In the said promotion order dated 27.5.2011, he was posted to Ranchi. But according to him he was not yet relieved from the lower post to join in the promoted post. Whereas his juniors who have been promoted along with him are all joined in the promoted post. It is further stated by him that he could not join the promoted post as there was no reliever to relieve him. In the meantime, some one has been posted at Ranchi. While so, by the impugned order dated 13.3.2012, the applicant has been posted to Hyderabad as AAD in the Assistant Engineer cadre post. Aggrieved by the said order, the OA has been filed for the aforementioned relief.

3. On notice, the respondents have entered appearance and filed a reply statement. It is stated by them that as can be seen from the promotion cum posting order that all the individuals were posted out without relief and date of move as forthwith. The applicant instead of moving out has given representation on various dates requesting change of posting at Chennai, Bangalore or Hyderabad on the ground of daughter's marriage, mother's ailment. Therefore, the allegation of the applicant that he was not relieved from the post is totally baseless . It is further stated by them that the posting of the applicant in the Assistant Engineer cadre to Hyderabad is in order in view of the fact that the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal has issued stay order on 1.6.2011 on the promotion panel in OA No.537/PB/2011 filed one Hari Mohan and in this connection notice was also sent to the applicant. It is also stated by the respondents that the applicant has completed more than 4 years in Chennai. In view of the stay imposed on the promotion panel and also the applicant has also completed 4 years in Chennai, he has been posted to Hyderabad as per posting policy of the Department. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the OA.

4. We have heard Mr. R. S. Anandan, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. K. Ramanatha Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the pleadings and the materials placed on record.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that when the applicant was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer and posted to Ranchi by the order dated 27.5.2011(Annexure A.1), he should not be deprived of taking the higher post as no person has come to relieve him. However, we could see from the records that after the applicant was posted to Ranchi, he has made various representations on 31.5.2011, 5.9.2011 and 24.11.2011 requesting for a posting near to Chennai, Bangalore or Hyderabad area in order to look after his aged mother and to perform the marriage of his daughter. In none of the representations, he has made any mention that no reliever has come to relieve him to enable him to join the promoted post at Ranchi. Thus it is clear from his representations that he has not made any request to any of the higher authorities that he is not able to move to Ranchi due to non-posting of the substitute to relieve him. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that this argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant could not move out due to non-availability of a substitute is an after thought. Moreover, we also see from the Promotion-cum-Posting order dated 27.5.2011 wherein the name of the applicant figures at S.No.16. It is mentioned in the Remark column ‘To move forthwith’. This clearly goes to show that the posting order mandate that he can straightaway move irrespective of substitute being posted or not. Under such circumstances, the applicant cannot take the plea that he could not go to Ranchi due to non-availability of reliever.

6. Subsequently, by the impugned order dated 13.3.2012, the applicant was posted to Hyderabad as AAD in the Assistant Engineer cadre. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is when he was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer and posted to Ranchi by the order dated 27.5.2011 and the applicant was waiting for a reliever to join the promoted post, the applicant was penalized by passing the impugned order by which he was posted to Hyderabad and that too in the same cadre of Assistant Engineer. The said action of the respondents would amount to discrimination. It is to be mentioned here that promotion will take effect only when the promoted officer joins the promotional post. In the instant case, though the applicant has been promoted to the post of Executive Engineer and posted to Ranchi, he did not join the said post. Therefore, the promotion order dated 27.5.2011 has not become effective. In the meantime, some other person has challenged the promotion cum posting order dated 27.5.2011 issued on the basis of the promotion panel prepared on 25.5.2011 before the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in OA 537/PB/2011. The said Bench has stayed the panel of select list and also issued notice. It is also seen from the records furnished by the respondents that the applicant herein is also a private respondent in the OA filed before the Chandigarh Bench and the notice issued by the Chandigarh Bench h

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

as also been served on the applicant. Therefore, the promotion order of the applicant dated 27.5.2011 which was issued based on the panel of promotion dated 23.5.2011 is now sub judice before the Chandigarh Bench and the interim order of stay granted by the said Bench will apply to the applicant. In the said circumstances, it would not be proper on our part to pass any order on the merits of the case. It is upto the applicant to comply with the order dated 13.3.2012 and represent to the competent authority for his grievances. 7. For the aforesaid reason, we refrain from passing any order on the OA. The OA is ordered accordingly. No order as to costs.
O R