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

Sudam Das Purkayastha v/s The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home affairs, New Delhi & Others

Company & Directors' Information:- G DAS & CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74992WB1935PTC008299

Company & Directors' Information:- DAS & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U72100AS1946PTC000740

Company & Directors' Information:- K C DAS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U15433WB1946PTC013592

Company & Directors' Information:- D K DAS & CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1938PTC009288

Company & Directors' Information:- U C DAS & CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U31200WB1987PTC042709

Company & Directors' Information:- DAS & DAS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1950PTC019222

Company & Directors' Information:- A S DAS CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1957PTC023552

Company & Directors' Information:- DAS-G INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24304DL2020PTC370609

Company & Directors' Information:- P K DAS & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74210WB1955PTC022259

    Original Application No. 043 /000102 of 2019

    Decided On, 04 March 2020

    At, Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati


    For the Applicant: P.K. Roy, Advocate. For the Respondents: -----

Judgment Text

Order (Oral):

Manjula Das, Judicial Member.

1. The applicant has filed this O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with the following reliefs.

‘8.1 Quash and set-aside Communication dated 18.05.2018 issued by the respondent No.3

8.2 To direct the respondent particularly, the respondent No.2 to antedate the promotion of the applicant to the past of Accounts officer granted vide order dated 30.11.2018 making the promotion effective in the year 2009 when the Assistant Accounts office similarly situated with the applicant were promoted to the post of Accounts Officer’.

2. Mr.P.K.Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that the applicant is a physically handicapped person (Orthopaedically handicapped) with 40% disability. He was appointed initially through the Staff Selection, as a clerk under physically handicapped quota on 17.06.1996 in the Establishment of the Controller of Defence Accounts(CDA), Govt. of India. The applicants such physical disability, entitles him to the benefits provided under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, protection of Rights and full participation). Act, 1995. After passing of subordinate Accounts Service(SAS). Part 1 and part II successively, the applicant got 2(two) promotion out of turn, initially on 10.08.2000 as Auditor (after passing SAS part-1) and later on 28.04.2003 as Section officer (Accounts) (after passing part II examination) many of his seniors in the feeder grade were not promoted. The applicant got promotion to the higher grade of ‘Assistant Accounts Officer along with other on 02.04.2007, only when the vacancy in the set Grade had arisen. The Post of Accounts officer(AC), being to Group ”B” post was however not brought within reservation against 3% reserved quota for physically handicapped persons, by various departments of the Govt., of India till the year 2016, when the honorable Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment in the case of Raju Kumar Vs. Union of India in writ (Civil) No.1521 of 2008 and Civil Appeal No.5389 of 2016, after going through the provisions of Section 32 and 33 of the 1995 Act and all the relevant office Memorandum, issued by the Govt., of India, from time to time in relation to the matter, has declared and held that. Group “A” and “e” pasts should also be covered under the said 1995 Act.

3. Learned counsel further submitted that pursuant to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the inchoate right of the, applicant, to get the statutory benefit of reservation in promotion against Grade B Post, as a Physically Handicapped person, in to a full-fledged right. The applicant therefore, filed a representation, through proper channel, before the Controller General of Defence Accounts (CGDA) (AN). New Delhi, praying for grant of promotion as Accounts officer (Grade B), against 3% reserved quota for PWD, in the light of the judgment given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in WP(C) No.521 of 2008, on 29.01.2018 and later again on 02.07.2018. But without extending the said statutory benefits to the applicant, the respondent authority has granted promotion to the post of Accounts officer, against unreserved category of posts, effective from the date of joining. The applicant therefore, has filed instant O.A. for a direction for antedating his said promotion to the past of Accounts Officer, on and from 2009, when the applicant found suitable under the 3% reservation against physically handicapped quota.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that when the applicant has laid his claim, basing on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Others V.Union of India and Others (2016) 13 SCC 153 in (Writ Petition No.521 of 2008) in the judgment dated 30.06.2016, whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 32 and 33 of the Disability Act, 1995 and the related DoPT Office Memorandum, has held that posts under PWD in group-A,B,C and D should be reserved, irrespective of mode of recruitment, but the authority relied on the O.M dated 3.12.2013, without any relevance, has rejected the case of the applicant.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Kumar Gupta and others V.Union of India and Others (2016) 13 SCC 153 in (Writ Petition No.521 of 2008) dated 30.06.2016 has held that; “We further direct the Government to extend three percent reservation to PWD in all IDENTIFIED POSTS in Groups A and Group B, irrespective of the mode of filling up of such posts. This writ petition it accordingly allowed”.

6. 6. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned communication dated 18.05.2018, having been passed, in contravention of the judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same has to be rendered as non-est in the eye of law and as such liable to be set aside.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant perused the pleadings and the materials placed before us.

8. It is noted that representation dated 29.01.2018 and later again on 02.07.2018 submitted by the applicant for redressal of his grievance is pending before the respondent authorities.

9. Keeping in view of the above, without going into the merits of the case and without issuing notice to the respondents, in the ends of justice, we hereby direct the responde

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

nt authorities to dispose of the pending representation of the applicant dated 29.01.2018 and 02.07.2018 in the light of the judgment case of Rajeev Kumar Gupta and others Vs. Union of India and Others in Writ Petition (C) No.521 of 2008 and Civil Appeal No. 1567/2017 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order 10. It is made clear that whatever decision to be passed by the respondents shall be a reasoned and speaking and to be communicated to the applicant forthwith. 11. With the above direction, the O.A. stands disposed of. No order as to costs.