S.B. Sinha, J. - (1.) This application is directed against the order dated September 28, 1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Calcutta Branch, in O.A. No. 1180 of 1995 whereby and whereunder the writ application filed by the respondent herein was disposed of directing: "In view of the above, the case of the applicant, therefore, requires justifiably to be reconsidered afresh. If the cadre of Aerodrome Assistant and the posts of Aerodrome Assistant have been transferred to N.A.A. as stated in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the supplementary reply of the respondents then the application automatically becomes absorbed in the N.A.A. as part and parcel of the establishment of the N.A.A. from initial date of his deputation i.e. June 1, 1986 and there is no question of asking for any option in that case. If the respondents especially respondent No. 2 finds that it is not so then the cadre Aerodrome Assistant and the post of the applicant continues to exist under them and, therefore, he should be allowed to work and continue on the post without any hindrance. We, therefore, hereby allow this application and direct the respondent authorities especially respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the case of the applicant according to our above observations within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order by passing a reasoned and speaking order and communicating the same to the petitioner within a week thereof."
(2.) The fact of the matter has been stated in great detail by the learned Tribunal. However for the purpose of final disposal of this application suffice it to point out that the private respondent was a permanent employee of Civil Aviation Department. He was deputed to the National Airport Authority. Option was sought for from him as to Whether he wants to repatriate to his parent department or not. According to the petitioner, without being aware of the full fact and in particular the fact that in the meantime the post held by him in the Civil Aviation Department itself has been abolished as also the fact the post which he had been holding and the entire cadre have been, transferred to the National Airport Authority, exercised his option for going back to the parent department. However the petitioner made a representation while working in the National Airport Authority to cancel his option for. non-absorption in the N.A.A. whereafter he was appointed as an Accountant in the Geological Survey of India. With a grievance, that an option has been obtained from the applicant without disclosing the full fact, an. application was filed before the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal upon consideration of the entire matter has arrived at a finding of fact which is to the following effect: "We find from the above discussions and submissions that the applicant was initially appointed as Aerodrome Assistant on temporary basis on terms and conditions given in Annexure-A/1. He was sent on deputation w. e. f. June 1, 1985 alongwith 72 Aerodrome Assistants to N.A.A. upon the same terms and conditions (Annexure A/2). The applicant was asked to exercise his option for absorption in the N.A.A. vide letter dated September 15, 1989' (Annexure-A/5). He was relieved from the office of N.A.A. on the afternoon of September 30, 1993 vide order dated September 22, 1993 (Annexure-A/4) to report to the Office of the Regional Controller of Air Safety, Civil Aviation Department, Calcutta Airport. We find that a communication dated February 22, 1994 (Annexure-A/7) was received by the applicant from the office of Director General, Geological Survey of India, Calcutta offering the applicant a temporary appointment to the post of Accountant in . Geological Survey of India, Central Headquarters, Calcutta on being nominated by the Ministry of Personnel & Public Grievance and Pension (Department of Personnel and Tribunal), New Delhi aa a surplus staff, it is clear that all the above communications except Annexure-A/7 exchanged between the respondents and the applicant at no place, state regarding abolition of posts on which the applicant was appointed and subsequently made permanent under the respondents. It has also not been stated even suggestively that the post on which the applicant, was appointed initially and made permanent subsequently is likely to be abolished and he was likely to be declared surplus. The applicant was for the first time intimated about his being declared surplus by the order dated February 22, 1994 (Annexure-A/7) issued by the Office of the Geological Survey of India. Even at the time of repatriation from N.A.A. he was not informed that he would be declared surplus after joining his parent department. The terms and conditions of absorption in N.A.A. (Annexure-A/5) also nowhere state that those who will not opt for absorption in N.A.A. would be declared surplus in their parent department. The Director General Civil Aviation has also not informed either at the time of deputation or exercise of option or repatriation that the applicant would become surplus and his service would be placed at the disposal of surplus cell for redeployment."
(3.) The learned Tribunal upon taking into consideration the averments made by the parties as also the supplementary affidavit held: "The above discussion will show that the applicant has been dealt with in a shabby manner by the respondents especially respondent No. 2. The respondent authorities had taken decision without taking the applicant into confidence or even without making known to him their intention or the factual position. The applicant was kept in dark till February 22, 1994 when he was for the first time intimated of his being declared as a surplus staff as well as re-deployment that too not by the parent authority viz. respondent No. 2 but by an outsider where he was to be re-deployed viz. Director General, Geological Survey of India. This type of treatment meted out to a permanent staff under the respondents especially respondent No. 2 does not speak well or high about the Department. It is not made clear at any place why the entire action was taken in the back of the applicant or without the knowledge of the applicant. In the process the applicant has suffered a grave miscarriage of justice which has already taken place. The applicant was repatriated to his parent department under respondent No. 2 where he was already declared permanent. The respondents have at no time made known to the applicant that if he did not opt for absorption in the N.A.A. he would be declared surplus, would be treated as such and would be reported to surplus cell for his re-deployment. This was the minimum which was required from the respondents especially respondent No. 2 which has not been done";