Central Pollution Control Board and Ors v. Dharmendra Gupta and Ors

SANJIV KHANNA, J kapil

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Decided on: 3rd March, 2011 + WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1386 OF 2011 CENTRAL PLLUTION CONTROL BOARD & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr.Anurag Sharma with Mr.Prashant Kumar, Advocates versus DHARMENDRA GUPTA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. T.D.Yadav, Advocate for Respondents 1-2. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes DIPAK MISRA, CJ Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, Central Pollution Control Board and its functionaries, have called in question the legal validity of the order dated 9th November, 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short "the tribunal") in OA No. 1403/2010. 2. The respondents knocked at the doors of the tribunal contending, inter alia, that one Shri Y.N. Mishra was initially appointed as Data Entry Operator (DEO) and was brought in as Senior Lab Assistant on change of his cadre but his pay was not fixed in that quota. He was appointed on ad-hoc basis as Junior Scientific Assistant (JSA). Being grieved by the inter se seniority determination, the respondents had preferred the OA No. 1568/2002, which was decided by the tribunal on 1st August, 2003. In the said case, Shri Y.N. Mishra was the respondent No.4. The relief that was claimed in the said original application was that they should be treated senior to the respondent No.4 therein. The tribunal adverting to the facts and the contentions held as follows: - "The applicants as well as the respondent no.4 have been promoted to the post of Junior Scientific Assistant w.e.f. 23.07.2001 in the scale of Rs.5000-150-8000 as per the order dated 21.09.2001 (Annexure A-1). The only grievance of the applicants, which appears to be relevant, is the seniority of the applicants, vis-a-vis respondent no.4 in the cadre of Junior Scientific Assistants. The applicants have been placed junior to the respondent no.4 in the seniority list of Junior Scientific Assistant as on 1.1.2002 as circulated vide letter dated 14.3.2002 Annexure A-4. Respondent no.4 is shown at serial no.8 whereas applicant no.1 is at serial no.10, applicant no.2 at serial no.11 and applicant no.3 at Serial no.13 of this seniority list. The official respondents have placed a copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Board held on 18.04.2001. Item no. 3.16 clearly states that the conversion of the post of Data Entry Operator into Senior Lab Assistant has been approved in order to consider the promotion of respondent no.4 as Junior Scientific Assistant through the DPC which was held on 23.07.2001. In our opinion, the change of cadre of respondent no.4 may be permissible under the power of relaxation provided in the Recruitment Rules, however, he (respondent no.4) cannot be allowed to gain seniority to the detriment of the applicants after their promotion to the next higher grade. Therefore, the placement of respondent no.4 in the senior list above the applicants was not justified. We, therefore, direct the official respondents to place the respondent no.4 below the names of the applicants. The respondents are accordingly directed to carry out the correction in the seniority list as circulated vide letter dated 14.3.2002 in the cadre of Junior Scientific Assistants in so far as the applicants and respondent no.4 are concerned. This correction of seniority of the applicants vis-a-vis respondent no.4 should be carried out within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the applicants." 3. The said order was given effect to vide Office Memorandum dated 29th September, 2003 which reads as follows: - "In compliance of the order of Hon"ble Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench dat