Liberty to be given to the petitioner to make a fresh representation with regard to the grievances articulated before the court : Delhi High Court
Every individual has the right to demand a chance for change of post designation when they qualify all of its requirements. This was held in the judgment passed by a two- judge bench Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Talwant Singh, in the matter of Anita Kaushik vs. Union of India, [W.P.(C) 9512/2021 &amp; CM Nos.29498-99/2021], dealt with an issue where the petitioner filed a petition challenging an order dated 30.03.2021, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner had approached the tribunal with regard to the rejection of her representations, concerning the change of designation of her post. The respondents rejected the petitioner’s representations, which was what was assailed by her, before the tribunal. The rationale given by the tribunal is that It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was initially appointed to the post of Accounts Clerk-cum-Typist (ACT) and her services have been regularized as such with the initial date of her joining and the benefits of ACPS and MACPS have been also accorded to her by the respondents. Her only grievance is that at the time of her appointment, there was no available vacancy to the post of Accounts Clerk-cum-Typist. The respondent stated that if the applicant has been appointed in the year 2007/2008 and she has accepted the offer of appointment and terms and conditions thereof, at the initial stage, she cannot raise the issue that her appointment was without availability of vacancies for the said post and, therefore she should be re-designated and higher pay should be given to her and that too after more than a decade. In the present OA, the applicant has neither challenged her appointment to the post of Accounts Clerk-cum-Typist (ACT) nor has raised any point as to why this Tribunal should interfere in the matter of change of designation as being raised by the applicant. Though the impugned order has been passed on 06.12.2019, however, the claim of the applicant is of the year 2007/2008 and, therefore, we find that the claim is stale one. Counsel for the petitioner stated that, what ails the petitioner is not simply the re-designation of her post, but, that her junior, one Mr. Rajesh Karanth has been accorded the benefits of higher post, without the petitioner being considered for the same. After hearing both the parties The Hon’ble Delhi High Court allowed the petition and held that the court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the tribunal. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to make a fresh representation with regard to the grievances articulated before us, i.e., the petitioner’s junior has been considered for placement to the higher post and is being paid a higher salary, while the same benefit has not been extended to her. It also held that The respondents will dispose of the aforementioned representation, within a period of four weeks, from the date, they are served with the representation. Click here to view judgement
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decision delivered on: 03.09.2021 W.P.(C) 9512 2021 & CM Nos.29498 99 2021 ANITA KAUSHIK ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. Setu Niket and Ms. Esha Mazumdar Advocates UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Jivesh Kumar Tripathi and Mr. Anirudh Shukla Advs. for UOI. HON BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH RAJIV SHAKDHER J. CM No.29499 2021 Allowed subject to just exceptions. W.P.(C) 9512 2021 & CM No.29498 2021This writ petition is directed against the order dated 30.03.2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in It appears the petitioner had approached the tribunal with regard to the rejection of her representations concerning the change of designation of O.A. No.651 2021. her post. W.P.(C) 9512 2021 page 2.2. The respondents rejected the petitioner’s representations dated 19.08.2019 and 21.06.2019 vide communication dated 06.12.2019 which was what was assailed by her before the tribunal. 2.3. The tribunal having considered the matter dismissed aforementioned OA. The rationale given by the tribunal is contained in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the impugned order dated 30.03.2021. For the sake of convenience the said paragraphs are extracted hereafter: It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was initially appointed to the post of Accounts Clerk cum Typist and her services have been regularized as such with the initial date of her joining and the benefits of ACPS and MACPS have been also accorded to her by the respondents. Her only grievance is that at the time of her appointment there was no available vacancy to the post of Accounts Clerk cum Typistnor has raised any point as to why this Tribunal should interfere in the matter of change of designation as being raised by the applicant. Though the impugned order has been passed on 06.12.2019 however the claim of the applicant is of the year 2007 2008 and therefore we find that the claim is stale one.” W.P.(C) 9512 2021 page 3. Mr. Setu Niket who appears on behalf of the petitioner says that what ails the petitioner is not simply the re designation of her post but that her junior one Mr. Rajesh Karanth has been accorded the benefits of higher post without the petitioner being considered for the same. In this behalf Mr. Niket has made the following submissions: That the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis w.e.f. 08.04.1993 vide letter of appointment dated 01.06.1993 and that she had subsequently been made permanent to the post designated as Accounts Clerk cum Typist ii) That Mr. Rajesh Karanth i.e. the petitioner’s junior was appointed as ACT on 01.01.1995. Accountant on 31.12.1995. iii) Mr. Rajesh Karanth was provisionally appointed as Junior iv) Mr. Rajesh Karanth was appointed as District Youth Officer and paid the salary applicable to the said post. In support of the aforementioned plea our attention has been drawn by Mr. Niket to the documents appended on pages 201 208 210 and 220 of the case file. Concededly these documents were not made available to the 3.2. Mr. Niket also concedes that the petitioner in her representations dated 19.08.2019 and 21.06.2019 which were rejected by the respondents via communication dated 06.12.2019 did not raise the grievance articulated tribunal. before us today. W.P.(C) 9512 2021 page 4. Having regard to the aforesaid we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the tribunal. However liberty is given to the petitioner to make a fresh representation with regard to the grievances articulated before us i.e. the petitioner’s junior has been considered for placement to the higher post and is being paid a higher salary while the same benefit has not been extended to her. If such a representationis made the respondents will deal with the same and pass a speaking order in that behalf. A copy of the order so passed will be furnished to the petitioner. 4.2. The respondents will dispose of the aforementioned representation within a period of four weeks from the date they are served with the representation. The petitioner will endeavour to make a fresh representation to the respondents at the earliest though not later than three weeks from The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Consequently the pending application shall also stand closed. RAJIV SHAKDHER J TALWANT SINGH J SEPTEMBER 3 2021 aj W.P.(C) 9512 2021 Click here to check corrigendum if any page 4 of 4