BALESHWAR S/O LATE SHRI PHOOL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this O.A., applicant has challenged the order dated 26.8.2005 (page 10). He has further sought a direction to the respondents to restore him to the original position with consequential benefits in accordance with the order of Tribunal in OA 736/2004.

(2.) It is submitted by the applicant that when he had initially approached this Tribunal in OA 736/2004, specific direction was given to the respondents that if a vacancy was available to promote Shri Satish Kumar without reversion of the applicant, then applicant will be brought back to his original position with consequential benefits. It is stated by the applicant that the vacancy is very much there, which is evident from the respondents own order dated 26.8.2005 yet applicant has not been promoted as UDC, which is contrary to the judgment given in aforesaid O.A. Therefore, the order dated 26.8.2005 is liable to be quashed because respondents cannot sit in appeal over the directions given by this Tribunal. He also submitted that all the points, which have been taken by the respondents in the impugned order, had already been contended before the Tribunal but those contentions were not accepted by the Tribunal while deciding O.A. No. 736/2004. Therefore, respondents could not have rejected his claim by taking the same contentions all over again in order dated 26.8.2005.

(3.) WE have heard both the counsel and perused the pleadings as well. Perusal of the earlier judgment dated 16.5.2005 in O.A. 736/2005 shows that all the points, which have been agitated by counsel for the respondents now, were taken by them even at that stage. However, those contentions were not accepted by the Tribunal. On the contrary, Tribunal was of the opinion that since total sanctioned strength was 398 whereas the official roster of UDC (Promotion quota) order issued on 28/29.10.1999 ends at 325. Therefore, vacancies were very much available in UDC. It was also observed that applicant had worked as UDC w.e.f. 29.11.1999 without any break, therefore, he was fully eligible for the post of UDC. It was also recorded by the Tribunal that the short question is, whether vacancy existed against which Shri Satish Kumar could have been accommodated without reverting the applicant. Since no satisfactory reply for the roster was given by the respondents, a direction was given to the respondents to issue a fresh roster and ascertain whether a vacancy was available to promote Shri Satish without reverting the applicant. In case, it was found that Shri Satish Kumar could have been accommodated without reversion of the applicant, then the applicant would be brought back to his original position with consequential benefits.