D.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITON No.4313/2014.
Union of India & ORS.versus S.R.Prajapati (Alongwith two similar nature matteRs.// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :ORDER
: 23 D.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITON No.4313/2014.
Union of India & ORS.versus S.R.Prajapati .24 D.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITON No.4314/2014.
Union of India & ORS.versus Deepa Ram Bhati .SS/1 D.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITON No.4276/2014.
Union of India & ORS.versus Dhan Singh Ranawat .Date of Order :: 4th July 2014.
HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA Mr.V.K.Mathur ].Mr.Falgun Buch ]., for the petitioneRs.<<>> BY THE COURT: These three petitions, preferred against the common order dated 27.01.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (‘the CAT’) in the Original Applications (‘OAs’) filed by the respective respondents, have been considered together; and are taken up for disposal by this common order.
On the submissions sought to be made by the petitioners-employeRs.the short common point in these cases is as to whether an employee working with the petitioneRs.when foregoing promotion, could be forced to accept the D.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITON No.4313/2014.
Union of India & ORS.versus S.R.Prajapati (Alongwith two similar nature matteRs.// 2 // promotion and to join on the promotional post even when he declines the offers of promotion?.
The attempt so made by the petitioners to enforce promotion was agitated against by the respondents-employees by filing the OAs before the CAT, which have been allowed by the impugned order dated 27.01.2014 while answering the question in favour of the employees.
The facts are not much in dispute.
The applicants- employees (respondents herein) were initially appointed to the post of Postal Assistant and they were granted promotions to the post of LSG(NB).They were further granted promotion to the post of HSG-II (NB) in the pay-band of Rs.9300-34800 with grade-pay of Rs.4200/- under the composite order of transfer/promotion dated 27.06.2013.
This order also carried the annotation to the following effect:- “In case of any of the officials is not interested to assume promoted post, he/she may decline the offer of promotion within 07 days from date of issue of posting orders otherwise he/she may be relieved by the competent authority.”
.
With reference to the above, the respondents- employees immediately submitted the letters declining the offer of promotion but the competent authority proceeded to reject their propositions on the alleged ground that the reasons for declining the promotion were not acceptable; and directed that the employees concerned may be relieved to join on the promotional post.
In challenge to the order so passed, the employees filed the OAs before the CAT, which have been D.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITON No.4313/2014.
Union of India & ORS.versus S.R.Prajapati (Alongwith two similar nature matteRs.// 3 // allowed by the impugned order dated 27.01.2014.
The present petitioneRs.in their reply before the CAT, submitted that these employees had been granted maximum number of financial upgradations and they had rendered all their services in the same division, i.e., at their native places prior to regular promotion to the post of HSG-II(NB).and they had declined the promotion without any justified reasons.
It was contended that an incumbent may decline promotion but he has no legal right for acceptance of such a proposition.
The policy guidelines in the Office Memorandum dated 01.10.1981, made with reference to Rule 13 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, were referred in this regard.
The CAT in its impugned order dated 27.01.2014 took note of all the submissions of the parties and thereafter, referred to an order dated 10.09.2012, passed by its Allahabad Bench in Original Application No.149/2012 while relying on another order dated 22.06.2012 passed by its Madras Bench in Original Application No.72/2012, whereby the similar nature OAs were allowed; and proceeded to quash the action impugned whereby the representation declining the promotion was not accepted by the petitioneRs.The petitioners seek to question the order so passed by the CAT essentially with reference to the contents of the Office Memorandum dated 01.10.1981.
It is submitted that declining of promotion causes serious hardship to other employees and also the administrative difficulties wherefor, it was provided that the appointing authority may refuse the proposition D.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITON No.4313/2014.
Union of India & ORS.versus S.R.Prajapati (Alongwith two similar nature matteRs.// 4 // regarding declination of promotion, if satisfied that the reason adduced by the official was not acceptable; and even disciplinary action could be taken against the official refusing the promotion.
During the couRs.of hearing, when we posed a specific query to the learned counsel for the petitioneRs.if there be any statutory rule whereunder the authority is empowered to reject the proposition of the employee in declining his promotion, the learned counsel could not answer in the affirmative but again referred to the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 01.10.1981.
We have gone through the said OM dated 01.10.1981 and find that the same was essentially issued with reference to the fact that in the earlier ordeRs.it was laid down that the officers refusing promotion should not be issued fresh offer of promotion for a period of six months and in modification thereof, it was decided that in such cases, no fresh offer of promotion would be issued for a period of one year.
It was, thereafter, stated that in the cases where reasons adduced by the officer for refusal of promotion were not acceptable to the appointing authority, the promotion should be enforced and in case, the officer still refused, even disciplinary action could be taken for refusal to obey the ordeRs.So far the proposition of postponing the future promotion upon refusal by the employee to accept the offer of promotion is concerned, we would not like to make any comment herein and it is obviously left for the parties concerned to deal with this aspect of the matter in accordance with law.
However, for D.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITON No.4313/2014.
Union of India & ORS.versus S.R.Prajapati (Alongwith two similar nature matteRs.// 5 // want of any rule or any statutory requirement, the other proposition in the OM, to enforce the promotion, remains questionable.
In our view, such a proposition in the said OM cannot be enforced as if a statutory provision.
The employer like the petitioners though could offer the promotion but it cannot be laid down as a universal rule that as a necessary consequence, the incumbent is obliged to accept such an offer.
Though the order as passed by the CAT in the present matter is not elaborate on all the aspects, but in the order relied upon therein, the other Benches of the CAT had taken the same view, essentially with the reasoning that the appointing authority cannot compel the employee to accept the promotion.
The order so passed by the CAT cannot be said to be suffering from any jurisdictional error.
The employees (respondents herein) appear to be of about 54-57 years in age.
In the totality of the circumstances, and looking to their age and status, if they have declined such an offer of promotion and their proposition has been upheld by the CAT, we find no reason to entertain these petitions.
The petitions fail and are, therefore, dismissed.
(BANWARI LAL SHARMA),J.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI),J.
Mohan/ D.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITON No.4313/2014.
Union of India & ORS.versus S.R.Prajapati (Alongwith two similar nature matteRs.// 6 // 24 D.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITON No.4314/2014.
Union of India & ORS.versus Deepa Ram Bhati .Date of Order :: 4th July 2014.
HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA Mr.V.K.Mathur ].Mr.Falgun Buch ]., for the petitioneRs.<<>> The writ petition stands dismissed [vide common order made in CWP No.4313/2014 : Union of India & ORS.versus S.R.Prajapati].(BANWARI LAL SHARMA),J.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI),J.
Mohan/ D.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITON No.4313/2014.
Union of India & ORS.versus S.R.Prajapati (Alongwith two similar nature matteRs.// 7 // SS/1 D.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITON No.4276/2014.
Union of India & ORS.versus Dhan Singh Ranawat .Date of Order :: 4th July 2014.
HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA Mr.V.K.Mathur ].Mr.Falgun Buch ]., for the petitioneRs.<<>> The writ petition stands dismissed [vide common order made in CWP No.4313/2014 : Union of India & ORS.versus S.R.Prajapati].(BANWARI LAL SHARMA),J.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI),J.
Mohan/