Full Text
Judgement Reserved on: 21st January, 2014
Judgement pronounced on: 29th January, 2014 PRINCE GARG ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.M.K. Bhardwaj, Adv.
Through: Nemo.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA DEEPA SHARMA, J. C.M.No.714/2014 (for exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.
Application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) No.361/2014 & CM Nos.713/2014 (for stay)
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner was appointed as Pollution Level Test Inspector (‘PLTI’) on 19th January, 1990. The respondents made appointments in the separate cadre of Motor Vehicle Inspector (‘MVI’). The petitioner’s contention had been that all the said appointees in the cadre of MVI had been promoted to the higher post of Motor Licensing Officer (‘MLO’) whereas the petitioner is still continuing as PLTI. 2014:DHC:559-DB
2. The petitioner made a represention dated 21st December, 2010 requesting for merger of PLTI cadre and MVI cadre. He had first filed an O.A.No.2120/2012 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (‘CAT’), stating that he had not got promotion for the last 25 years because he was part of PLTI Cadre whereas the Inspectors in the Cadre MVI/DTI/RSIs have got third promotion. The learned Tribunal vide its order dated 29th June, 2012 disposed of the said application with the direction to decide the represention dated 21st December, 2010 of the petitioner.
3. Vide an order dated 27th July, 2012 passed by the respondents, the representation of the petitioner was disposed of whereby rejecting the request of merger of two Cadres. The petitioner was also relieved from his posting vide an order dated 30th July, 2012 with the direction to report for duties in Taxi Unit, Burari. The petitioner challenged both these orders before the learned Tribunal in O.A. No.2519/2012. The learned tribunal passed its order on 4th October, 2012 whereby the application of the petitioner was dismissed.
4. The petitioner has assailed the said order of the learned Tribunal before us on the grounds that the tribunal had committed grave error of law in passing the said order as it had not considered the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lt.Governor of Delhi vs. SI Roop Lal AIR 2000 SC 594 wherein it had been held that the Tribunal is required to follow the view taken by the Coordinate Bench. It is submitted that the Division Bench of the learned Tribunal not only in one but two decisions i.e. in O.A.NO.2491/2008 and 1427/1995 held that the transfer outside the cadre in a different wing is bad in law being violative of conditions of service.
5. It is further contended that the learned Tribunal had not considred all the issues in a proper manner. It is submitted that his posting in the Taxi Unit, Burari amounts to change of cadre. It is further submitted that the directios of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in SLP no.22909/1996 in March, 1997 had not been taken into consideration and the order is laible to be set aside. Request is also made to quash the orders dated 27th July, 2012 and 30th July, 2012.
6. In the alternative, it is prayed that in the eventuality of refusal to merge two Cadres being independent to each other, the petitioner be not transferred out of Pollution Control Branch (PCB) as it would amount to serving under junior officers of MVI bench.
7. We have heard the petitioner and have gone through the record.
8. The issues raised by the petitioner are: (a) Whether rejection of the representation dated 21st December, 2010 to merge PLTI and MVI cadres into one vide order dated 27th July, 2012 is unjustified, (b) Whether his transfer to Taxi Unit, Burari vide order dated 30th July, 2012 amounts to forcing him to work under his juniors.
9. The petitioner had challenged the orders dated 27th July, 2012 and 30th July, 2012 before the learned Tribunal and raised the same contentions, as have been raised before us. On a consideration of the rival contentions of the parties and relying on the factual postion of the case, the Tribunal has observed as under:
10. The judgment of the hon’ble Supreme Court in SI Roop Lal (supra) relied upon by the petitioner has no relevance in this case as the findings in that case are based on entirely different set of facts.
11. In view of the above, it is apparent that the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principle Bench, New Delhi does not suffer with any infirmity. There are no grounds to interfere with the findings of learned Tribunal. The present writ petition is dismissed with no orders as to costs. The stay application also stands disposed of.
DEEPA SHARMA, J. GITA MITTAL, J. JANUARY 29, 2014 rb