Gaya Prasad v. Union of India and Ors.

1. This writ petition challenges order dated 8 March 2024, whereby the Tribunal has adjudicated MA 167/2023 and MA 619/2024 filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal seeking interim reliefs.

2. The impugned order reads thus: “MA No. 619/2024 This MA has been listed for hearing today. We find that the prayer made in the said MA is as follows: a) Immediate stay on the grant of Non- Functional Selection Grade in Junior Administrative Grade of ITS Group A officers in level-13 in Pay matrix (Rs 1,23,100- 215,900) for the juniors to applicant w.e.f 13.02.2024 vide order no. 314-04/2023-STG-III dated: 13.02.2024 b) Direction for listing the MA 167/2023 in OA 1624/2017 High on Board for adjudication because the said MA was to be decided in March/April 2023 in accordance with order/direction passed by Hon'ble High Court, New Delhi in Writ Petition (c) No. 1575/2023. The applicant, who appears in person, prays for a restrain order on grant of Non-Functional Selection Grade in Junior Administrative Grade of ITS Group A officers in level-13 m Pay matrix (Rs. 1,23,100-215,900) to persons juniors to the applicant w.e.f 13.02.2024, vide order no. 314-04/2023-STG-III dated 13.02.2024. He states that since his juniors (Serial Nos. 53 to 83) have been promoted, he insists that a stay be granted on the promotion of his juniors. The reasoning given by the applicant is that since he has been deprived of the promotion, why should his juniors be given the benefit of the same. Learned counsel for the respondents pleads for some time to respond to the said MA. On hearing the arguments put forth by the applicant appearing in person as well as learned counsel for the respondents, we find that no cogent reason has been put forth in the MA for putting a stay on the impugned promotion orders. We do not find any merit in the MA and the same is accordingly dismissed. MA No. 167/2023 Vide this MA, the applicant makes the following prayer: a) for immediate stay on the promotion of juniors to the applicant as well as on subsequent their joining vide order No.12-2/2022-STG-I-Part(2) dated: 31.01.2022 w.ef 31.12.2022. b) for the direction to the respondent No.1 for the promotion of aggrieved b applicant at par with his junior as already prayed in Prayer No.2 of the OA. c) Direction for Disciplinary proceeding against Shri Mahesh Shukla, Member (Services), Shri Sunil Prohit, DDG(Personnel) and Director( Staff) Deptt of Telecom for willful and deliberate violation of CCS rules/ DoPT instructions and Supreme Court rulings in self fabricated, frivolous and flimsy matter with an oblique motive for financial, mental agony to already aggrieved applicant and to undue favour to his juniors as narrated in this application We find that:

(i) Prayer (a) is regarding joining orders with reference to order dated 31.01.2022. Since these orders had been passed more than two years back this prayer has become infructuous with the efflux of time.

(ii) Prayer (b) is already a part of the OA itself and shall be considered at the time of final decision of the OA.

(iii) Regarding Prayer (c), we are aware of the limited jurisdiction available in such cases. In view of the above, both MA No. 619/2024 & 167/2023 are dismissed. List on 05.04.2024.”

3. In view, the petitioner could not maintain the prayers in these applications without impleading the affected juniors.

4. We have also gone through the OA which was filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal in which the said applications were filed. The prayer clause in the OA reads thus: “In the perspective of the above facts and circumstances, it is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to

I. Direct the respondent No.1 to consider the regular promotion of aggrieved applicant to JTS in ITS group 'A' from the date of DPC (25th July 2008) conducted for thirty three TES Group 'B' officers in available 108 vacancies of promotee quota of JTS in ITS Group' A' as per the order dated: 12th May 2006 in OA No.1066/2005 and to promote him to the post of ADG in Senior Time Scale accordingly as per recruitment rules for ITS group' A".

II. Direct the respondent No.1 to open more than five years old sealed cover for recommendation of DPC for promotion of aggrieved applicant and promote him to the post of ADG on regular basis from the date of promotion of his junior namely Shri Sanjeev Balyan and Shri Manish Ranjan with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay with interest as the charges of Dies-non (Root cause of action for which disciplinary proceeding was initiated) has been quashed and set aside by the Hon'ble Tribunal.”

5. Moreover, we find that the prayer clause in this writ petition also reads thus: “In the perspective of the above facts and circumstance in the harassment of aggrieved petitioner for 12-13 years as highlighted in the petition, it is most humbly prayed to this Hon'ble High court to;

1) Adjudicate prayer in MA167/2023 and MA 619/2024 by quashing and setting aside the order dated: 8th March, 2023 passed in MA No.167/2023 and MA No.619/2024 and pass interim order to stay further the grant of Non-Functional Selection Grade in Junior Administrative Grade of ITS Group A officers in level-13 in Pay matrix (Rs. 1,23,100-215,900) for the juniors to petitioner w.e.f 13Feb/2024 vide order No.314-04/2023- STG-III dated: 13Feb/2024 as prayed in the CM application.

2) To direct for listing the OA1625/2017 and other 5 year old pending MA daily on board on top and to fix the date of final order/judgement in seven year old pending OA l625/2017(complete pleading with written argument) in 14 years old cause of action in the facts and circumstances of prolonged vehement harassment of the aggrieved petitioner for 14 years and in view of not being complied orders passed by this Hon'ble High Court in writ petition (c) no. 1575/2023.”

6. Alleged juniors to the petitioner are, therefore, affected by the prayers in the OA, the MA in which the impugned order has been passed, as well as the present writ petition.

7. Persons who are affected by the prayers urged before the Court have necessarily to be impleaded.

8. In view thereof, we find no case to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal as, according to us, the prayers in the MA could not have been maintained without impleading the affected juniors.