2013 (2) TMI 129 - HC - Indian Laws

Appointment procedures - workman cannot be given appointment in Group C post by virtue of merger of Group D post in Group C - Held that - The petitioner was entitled to appointment in Group D and since that post has merged into Group C post and till the order dated 24.11.2008 remains as it is, the workman is entitled to get the benefit which were available to the staffs of the Group D post who also without there being any order from the Staff Selection Commission, got the post in Group C . Therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any error in directing the petitioner to comply with the order dated 24.11.2008.

Issues:
1. Interpretation of merger of Group 'D' post into Group 'C' post.
2. Compliance with the order dated 24.11.2008.
3. Validity of the Tribunal's direction to comply with the order.
4. Challenge to the order dated 24.11.2008 through a writ petition.
5. Dismissal of the writ petition and direction to implement the order.

Interpretation of Merger of Group 'D' post into Group 'C' post:
The petitioner argued that the Group 'D' post had merged into Group 'C' post, creating a separate cadre of Multi-Tasking Skill post as per the Notification dated 29.08.2008. The appointment to Group 'C' post was to be done by the Staff Selection Commission. However, the Tribunal held that the petitioner failed to move any application for modification of the order dated 24.11.2008, which directed compliance without any review application submitted. The Court opined that the workman was entitled to the benefits available to staff of the Group 'D' post, who obtained the Group 'C' post without any order from the Staff Selection Commission. The Tribunal's direction to comply with the order dated 24.11.2008 was upheld.

Compliance with the order dated 24.11.2008:
The petitioner contended that due to the merger, they were unable to offer appointment to the workman in the Group 'C' post, which could only be filled through selection and appointment by the Staff Selection Commission. However, the Court emphasized that the petitioner, having been entitled to appointment in Group 'D', and with the merger into Group 'C' post, the workman should receive the benefits available to Group 'D' staff, who transitioned to Group 'C' without SSC orders. The Court found no error in the Tribunal's directive for compliance with the 24.11.2008 order.

Validity of the Tribunal's direction to comply with the order:
The Court affirmed that the Tribunal did not err in directing the petitioner to adhere to the 24.11.2008 order, as the workman was entitled to benefits similar to those received by Group 'D' staff who transitioned to Group 'C' without SSC involvement. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision.

Challenge to the order dated 24.11.2008 through a writ petition:
The petitioner had challenged the 24.11.2008 order through a writ petition, which was dismissed on 23.11.2011. The Court noted that there was no plea in the writ petition that the workman could not be appointed in the Group 'C' post due to the merger of Group 'D' into Group 'C'. The writ petition was dismissed, and a direction was given to implement the order.

Dismissal of the writ petition and direction to implement the order:
The Court found no merit in the petition and accordingly dismissed the writ petition. The direction was given to implement the order dated 24.11.2008.

← Previous Next →