UOI & Ors. v. Shiv Kumar Gupta

1. Same order dated February 15, 2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal allowing O.A.No.2017/1999 filed by respondent Shiv Kumar Gupta in both the writ petitions has been assailed by the Union of India and 3 out of 9 private respondents impleaded by him in the original application. 2013:DHC:286-DB

2. None appears for the 3 private respondents in the original application who are the writ petitioners in W.P.(C) No.4175/2002, the said writ petition is accordingly dismissed in default.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the Union of India and Shiv Kumar Gupta who appears in person, since we agree with the view taken by the Tribunal, we simply bring out one manifest absurdity in the stand taken by the department vis-à-vis Shiv Kumar Sharma.

4. The issue pertains to the date with effect wherefrom seniority would be reckoned of those who join service under Defence Research Development Organization (DRDO) on deputation basis but are subsequently absorbed. Highlighting that the applicable Recruitment Rules permit induction in various posts in DRDO by deputation and that a power exists in the Rules to relax the same, we simply highlight that Shiv Kumar Gupta as also the 3 writ petitioners of W.P.(C) No.4175/2002 join against different posts in DRDO on deputation basis and were subsequently permanently absorbed to the post they had joined on different dates. Whereas K.Subramanian, Ajay Singh and D.Venkateswarlu were accorded seniority w.e.f. the date they joined as deputationists, Shiv Kumar Gupta was accorded benefit of seniority w.e.f. the date he was permanently absorbed, and qua him the stand of the Union of India and DRDO is that since he was working at a post at a lower pay scale in the parent department and joined under DRDO as a deputationist at a higher pay scale, upon absorption, he was rightly accorded seniority w.e.f. the date of absorption.

5. But what do we find? Put in a tabular form, as under:-

┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│      Sl. Name                        Parent Organization    Scale under DRDO          │
│      No.                                    with              on deputation           │
│                                             Scale                                     │
├───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│      1.      Shiv Kumar Gupta        Military Engineers                               │
│                                           Services                                    │
│                                          `3000-4500            `3700-5000             │
│ W.P.(C) 4518/2001 & 4175/2002                                      Page 2 of 3        │
│                                                                     2013:DHC:286-DB   │
│      2.     K.Subramanian           Military Engineers                                │
│                                          Services                                     │
│                                        `3000-4500            `4100-5300               │
│      3.     Ajay Singh              Bharat Electronics                                │
│                                            Ltd.                                       │
│                                     `3100-5150 (IDA)     `3700-5000 (CDA)             │
│      4.     D.Venkateswarlu           Andhra PWD             `3000-4500               │
│                                       `1050-1600          [`1100-1600 (pre-           │
│                                                               revised)]               │
│ 6.        Learned counsel for the petitioner has no answer to give. Even              │
└───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

7. Thus both writ petitions are dismissed but without any order as to costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE (VEENA BIRBAL)

JUDGE JANUARY 17, 2013//kks//