MARIAMMA JOSE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two O.As. inspite of opposing prayers, arise out of the same orders. The applicant in O.A. 444/2001 is the 6th respondent in O.A. 623/2001. Since the facts to be considered for adjudication of the issues involved in both the O.As. are common, it is considered expedient and parties do agree to take up the two cases for common disposal.

(2.) O.A. 444/2001: The applicant, Smt. Mariamma Jose who started her career as Lower Division Clerk in the Central Excise Department in Bombay in March, 1966, became an Upper Division Clerk in February 1972. While so, she was transferred from Bombay to the Central Excise Collectorate (since renamed as Commissionerate) at Kochi on request and posted as Lower Division Clerk, enforcing certain adverse conditions not forming part of the relevant O.M. dated 12.2.58 governing inter-charge transfer of non-gazetted staff at the relevant time. Clauses (i) and (ii) of O.M. dated 12.2.58 read as follows:

(3.) THE official respondents have resisted the O.A. 444/2001 mainly on the ground that if A-l order was implemented extensively, it would have led to results contrary to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Narender Chadha v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 638=1986(1) SLJ 287 (SC), followed by the C.A.T. Ernakulam Bench in O.A. No. 978/91. According to the respondents, when a simulated review DPC was conducted in the grade of A.O., one A.O. who had been functioning in the grade for the past 3 years (who is in fact the applicant in O.A. 623/91) was fund to face reversion on the basis of A-l and that on reversion that officer would lose seniority without further chance of promotion.