At, Central Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam Bench
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. BALAKRISHNAN
By, JUDICIAL MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE P. GOPINATH
By, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
For the Petitioner: N. Anilkumar, Senior PCGC. For the Respondents: ---------
P. Gopinath, Administrative Member:
1. The applicant in the O.A submits that he is fully qualified to hold the post of Chief Personnel Officer now re-designated as Manager (HR). He had more than 22 years experience in Central Government as well as Public Sector Undertakings at the time when he applied to the post of Chief Personnel Officer pursuant to notification. The post of Chief Personnel Officer was available only at Thiruvananthapuram and Pune at the time of Advt./Notification. Though, the applicant was interviewed for the post of Chief Personnel Officer, he was offered only a lower Grade Pay post of Senior Administrative Officer. At that point of time, the applicant was very much in need of a better job and therefore he was forced to join the post of Senior Administrative Officer. The post of Chief Personnel Officer was kept vacant. Therefore, immediately after joining the post of Senior Administrative Officer, he made a request for up gradation to the post of Chief Personnel Officer. Though, originally the said request was rejected by Head (HR) the applicant again submitted a request which is now pending consideration with the Director General of CDAC. The applicant has now more than 4 B= years experience in CDAC alone in the post of Senior Administrative Officer. Therefore, he should be appointed as Head (HR).
2. Applicant also submits that Shri.Suresh.M., Shri.Vijayakumar.V and Smt.Sreekumari joined as Data Entry Operator in CDAC and they were wrongly promoted against the O.M.No.F7(1)/IC/86/44 dated 11.9.1989 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure. It is further submitted that the promotion of Data Entry Operator was confirmed and their pay scale was also approved and decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri.Kishan Lal and others Vs. Union of India.
3. The applicant submits that the DEO can reach maximum level Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- to Rs.4800/- as per the 6 th Pay Commission Report. Whereas in CDAC (T) they were promoted to the level of Principal Technical Officer and their pay was fixed in the Grade Pay of Rs.7600/- which is illegal and arbitrary.
4. Shri. Mohammed T.P. was appointed as Department Head (HR) against the CDAC Byelaws Staff Rules under Clause 4.1.2 and also against the Fundamental Rule FR No.49. Smt. Jayasree who joined as Hindi Assistant was wrongly promoted as Administrative Executive and was further wrongly promoted as Administrative Officer against the existing 6 the Pay Commission Report. Smt. Jayasree joined the organization as Hindi Assistant and now she is handling HR. Shri. Vijayakumar.C.S., an ITI holder joined as Draftsman and was appointed as Administrative Officer of Techno park against the CDAC by laws under Clause 4.1.2 and also against the Fundamental Rule FR 49. It is submitted that the applicant has been working in CDAC for more than 4B= years in the post of Senior Administrative Officer. He had also 22 years experience prior to his appointment in CDAC at various supervisory levels. The respondents cannot ignore the fact that the applicant is fully qualified for the post of Head (HR).
5. Reliefs sought by the applicant are :
1. To call for the records leading to Special Audit by 3 rd respondent ie. Dy. C&AG and recovery should be made from the employee who was wrongly promoted and paid huge amount of public money as salary and it should be recovered after the Special Audit of C&AG.
2. To declare that Shri.TP Mohammed, Shri.Suresh.M, Shri.Vijayakumar V, Shri. Vijayakumar CS, Smt.Santha, Smt.Jayasree and Smt.Sreekumari promotions was wrong and the excess money should be recovered from them after the Special Audit including last 10 years retired all employees who were wrongly promoted so far in CDAC all centre including Corporate Office.
3. To declare that Shri. Rai Varghese appointed as Director (HRD) is null and void and he will be continued as Joint Director (HRD) as per his appointment.
4. To declare that Shri.Pownikar Srinivas appointed as Joint Director is null and void and he will be continued as Chief Librarian.
5. To declare that the applicant was entitled to be appointed as Head (HR) under direct reporting to the 5th respondent.
6. To cancel the entire memo's issued to the applicant and the warning/surveillance letter issued by 5th respondent dated 4.11.2015 should be treated as canceled and null and void.
7. To direct the 4th and 5th respondents not to take any revenge or spoil the applicant career/promotion in future due to filing of this case. Provide the security measures to the applicant life in future.
6. Heard the applicant at the admission stage. Counsel for the respondents points out that the O.A is unsustainable on so many grounds and so it cannot be admitted.
7. On going through the pleadings and the prayers sought in the Original Application itself, it can be seen that this application suffers from the vice of mis joinder causes of action. Promotions granted to different persons on different occasions covered by different orders are sought to be challenged by the applicant by filing a single application, that too, without impleading the persons who were granted promotion. Therefore, the O.A suffers on account of non-joinder of necessary parties also. This application as presented now is unsustainable for plurality of remedies claimed by theapplicant. As said earlier multiple causes of actions are clubbed together with no connection whatsoever to one another.
7. One of the reliefs sought in the O.A is for providing security measures to the applicant's life. Central Administrative Tribunal is not the appropriate forum for adjudication of such matte
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
rs. 8. The applicant also seeks Special Audit of his organization which is again a matter not falling within the purview of the Central Administrative Tribunal. 9. If the applicant wants to proceed based on one cause of action against one person (one officer), it is to be filed separately, impleading that officer. Since the causes of action are not interconnected, or interrelated all such causes of action or reliefs cannot be clubbed together. If the applicant so wishes he may file separate applications, provided the application is otherwise legally sustainable. 10. O.A is dismissed as above. No costs.