Sh.
J.P.S. Saroha & ANR Vs. Union of India & ANR [1997] INSC 427 (10 April
1997)
K.
RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
O R D
E R This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench New Delhi made on May 30, 1986 in O.A. No.173/1986.
The
admitted position is that appellant No.1 was appointed as a Junior Scientific
Assistant, Grade II on 30
67. He
was made permanent on April
1, 1970 and was
further promoted as Senior Scientific Assistant on 1.10.1973 in Defence
Research and Development Organisation. Similarly the second appellant was
appointed as Junior Scientific Assistant, Grade I on 6.6.1967 and was made
permanent on April 1,
1970. He was promoted
as Junior Scientific Assistant, Grade I on 25.3.19?1. All have held while they
were continuing in Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO).
Subsequently, in 1976, the Technical Committee (Engineer Stores) was
constituted and it was transferred so as to be under the charge of Director
General of Inspection. They were transferred within that Department and
continued to be in the said Department. With effect from January 30, 1979, the Department was further
trifurcated as Director General of Inspection and Technical Committee
(Engineers Stores). It would appeal that the chances of promotions accelerated
in DRDO. The appellants, therefore, claimed repatriation to the DRDO from
Director General of Inspection. Since the respondents' requests were not
acceded to, they filed O.A. in the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the O.A. Thus,
this appeal by special leave.
It is
contended for the appellants that by fortuitous circumstances, they have been
posted in the Director General Inspection and in the Technical Committee
(Engineers Stores). Since common seniority was maintained prior to the
trifurcation, they had no grievance for their continuance under the control of
Director General of Inspection, At the time of trifurcation, though the
Department called for option from Grade-I but to Grade-II Officers, no such
option was given, The appellants said that this was against their wishes. They
cannot be made to suffer the continuance in a transferee Department and,
therefore, they are entitled to all the benefits of promotions. When a person
junior to him in DRDO was confirmed and promoted to a higher post, the
appellants claimed parity. Having regard to the contentions, the question that
arises for consideration is: whether the non transfer of the appellants to the
DRDO is vitiated by any manifest error warranting interference? It is seen that
initially DRDO and DGI were two separate operations. In respect of the service
in Technical Committee, personnel were discharging the respective duties
assigned to them and the personnel therein were transferred to the administrative
control of the Director General of Inspection. The entire wing having been
transferred, to be in the control of the Director General of Inspection,
necessary consequence would be that the personnel working there would remain in
the Department. It is not the case of the transfer of the employees from one
Department to other Departments on option basis. Under these circumstances,
though the persons have been appointed subsequent to them while they remained
within the charge of DRDO Department, they cannot claim that injustice has been
done to them. Under these circumstances, we think that there is no illegality
in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference.
The
appeal is accordingly dismissed. If there are any rights given to them and the
personnel similarly situated have given accelerated, that would be a different
cause of action. The appellants would be free to avail of remedy as is
available under the law.
Back
Pages: 1 2