No interference if selection process for UPSC is fair: CAT

New Delhi: If UPSC selection criteria for shortlisting candidates is processed in a fair, impartial and reasonable manner, no case for any interference is required, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has held.

"We find no basis to accept the contention regarding arbitrariness or discrimination against the applicants," the Tribunal, comprising Members Shanker Raju and Veena Chhotray, said while dismissing a petition. 

The applicants -- Atul Kumar Nasa and Ajay Sachan, approached the CAT after not being issued call letters for interview for the posts of Deputy Drugs Controller despite claiming to be fulfilling all eligibility conditions.

The tribunal rejected their contentions, disputing validity of shortlisting criteria of the UPSC.

"As per the settled law, even a selected candidate has no legally enforceable right," the CAT said.

It noted that preferential treatment would be meted out to those candidates by the Commission having higher qualifications after it was approved by the competent authority.

The tribunal consented with an earlier apex court decision, cited as a precedence, saying there is every presumption in form of the bonafide exercise of power by the administration unless the contrary is proved with a proof of a very high degree of credibility.

It refuted the allegations of arbitrariness in the selection process as the UPSC had followed the shortlisting criteria uniformly.

PTI

CAT clears air on promotion benefits

If an employee, fulfiling the eligibility criteria for promotion to a particular post, works for a reasonable period on that post against a vacancy,, the government cannot deny him/her the actual promotion and accompanying financial benefits, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has held.

A Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) bench headed by Chairman Justice V.K. Bali held that in such a situation, it would be arbitrary to deny salary and other benefits of the promoted post to the employee.

The bench ordered the Delhi Government to re-fix the salary and retirement benefits of six retired school teachers, who had been given notional promotion to the post of principal, albeit without any accruing financial benefits.

Rejecting the Delhi Government’s arguments that all promotions had to be prospective and retired employees had no right to actual promotion, the CAT allowed the petition filed by Gaurishankar Sharma, Budh Prakash Tyagi, Raj Kumar Uppal, Prabhu Dayal, Jagdish Prasad Sharma and Chintamani Mathur.

It directed the Delhi Government to fix the correct salary of the petitioners, from the dates each of them had been promoted notionally to principal and to fix par arrears of salary for the period they were in service.

The CAT also ordered payment of revised retirement benefits, with six per cent interest on arrears within four months. The petitioners had served as heads of schools over several years.

But the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), held after their retirement, recommended only notional promotion for them and accordingly, the government did not give them any financial benefit of promotion.

Aggrieved  by  the  decision, they moved the CAT, seeking benefit of the pay scale  of principal, from the date they were assumed charge of the post, plus the arrears of pay and allowances after proper pay fixation, with retrospective  effect.  They also  demanded  revision  of  their retirement benefits.

The government contended the DPC could not be convened due to procedural reasons while they were in service and making them principals was only a stopgap arrangement. It said petitioners were not eligible for revision of retirement benefits and back wages because their promotion was only notional.

But citing the Supreme Court’s rulings on the issue, the CAT rejected these arguments.

“By virtue of the fact that the Applicants have actually worked on the post of principal, they would …be eligible for payment of back wages also, besides salary for the post of principal, from the date they have been notionally promoted to that post,” it said.

CAT comes down heavily on AG

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The Central Administrative Tribunal has criticised the decision of the Accountant- General for denying commuted leave to a woman employee who was about to retire.
Central Administrative Tribunal member K.George Joseph, in an order issued recently, also directed the AG’s office to regularise the leave of Elsy John, retired supervisor of the AG’s Office.
The Tribunal directed the AG’s Office to disburse the withheld leave encashment, gratuity and salary along with an interest of nine percent per annum from May 1, 2008, till the date of actual payment. The amount should be paid within 15 days of receipt of the copy of the order of the tribunal.
The tribunal also came down heavily on the then Accountant General (A&E) V.Raveendran for denying the leave.
‘’Under the guise of being lenient, the AG is ready to sanction any kind of leave other than commuted leave. There is no justification in denying leave to the applicant and on insisting that she should not take commuted leave. The refusal to sanction commuted leave to the applicant is against the leave rules and is unjust, mala fide and reeks of personal prejudice. It is illegal, inhuman and arbitrary,’’ the Tribunal opined.
‘’Commuted leave is to be granted on the strength of a medical certificate to a Government servant, if there is a reasonable prospect of his returning to duty on its expiry.
Leave cannot be denied at the whims of the sanctioning authority. If it is denied, it is sheer harassment,’’ the Tribunal said.
If the AG had any doubt about the genuineness of commuted leave asked for, he could have got a second opinion at least for the period of leave from May 6 for which the applicant had applied in advance,the Tribunal said.
‘’AG has failed to find any administrative exigency that can justify the denial of commuted leave to the applicant who was on the verge of retirement. The duties entrusted with her were also not so high and important that her absence could have an impact on the administration. She was only one among the many senior accountants in the office and had informed her superior about her intention to go on leave,’’ the Tribunal said.
Elsy John was denied commuted leave and her salary was withheld for the month of April, 2008, and for 11 days in May, 2008.
She was also denied leave encashment for 43 days at her credit.
Though she was designated as supervisor in the office of the AG by virtue of her elevation under accelerated promotion scheme, she was actually entrusted with the duties of one of the many senior accountants.
She had applied for commuted leave from April 1, 2008, for 32 days and again from May 6, 2008, for 11 days, as she could not attend duties owing to illness. The leave application for 32 days, along with medical certificate was submitted only on May 5, as she was bedridden. She later retired on May 31, 2008.

© Copyright 2008 ExpressBuzz