CONTEMPT OF COURT BY NDGBGOA/OFTRICHY BRANCH
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
C.A. No. of 2014
In
O.A.No. 871
of 2013
1. National Defence Group “B”
Gazetted Officers Association,
Ordnance Factory Trichy
Branch
Tiruchirappalli,
TamilNadu - 620016
Represented by its
Secretary
K.K. Velayudhan
(Per.No.891402)
Junior Works Manager/
Ordnance Factory,
Tiruchirappalli,
TamilNadu – 620016
2. J.Gowrishankar (Per No.
891362)
Junior Works Manager,
Ordnance Factory ,
Tiruchirappalli,
TamilNadu – 620016 ... Applicants
- Vs -
1. Mr. R K Mathur, (Additional Charge)
THE SECRETARY
Ministry of Defence,
Deptt. Of Defence
Prodn. & Supplies,
South Block, New Delhi.
2. Mr. Ratan P Watal
THE SECRETARY
Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of
Expenditure,
New Delhi.
3. Mr. MC Bansal
THE CHAIRMAN
Ordnance Factory Board
10-A, Shahid Khudiram Bose Road
Kolkata – 700 001.
4. Mr. B P Babu
THE GENERAL MANAGER
Ordnance Factory, Tiruchi,
Tiruchirappalli
TamilNadu – 620016 ... Respondents
PETITION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT – CIVIL
The above named Applicants begs to state as follows: -
1.Particulars
of the Applicants: -
|
i. Name of the Applicants:
|
1. National Defence Group “B” Gazetted
Officers Association, Ordnance Factory
Trichy
Branch, Tiruchirappalli,
TamilNadu - 620016
Represented by its Secretary
K.K. Velayudhan (Per.No.891402)
Junior Works Manager/ Ordnance
Factory, Tiruchirappalli,
TamilNadu – 620016
2. J.Gowrishankar (Per No. 891362)
Junior Works Manager,
Ordnance Factory , Tiruchirappalli,
TamilNadu – 620016
|
|
ii. Name of Father / Husband:
|
|
iii. Age of the Applicants:
|
|
iv. Office in which employed and
Designation:
|
2. Particulars of the Respondents: -
|
i. Name of the Respondents:
ii. Father’s name:
iii. Age
iv. Office in
which employed and
designation
|
1. Mr. R K Mathur, (Additional Charge)
THE SECRETARY
Ministry of Defence,
Deptt. Of Defence Prodn. &
Supplies,
South Block, New Delhi.
2. Mr. Ratan P Watal
THE SECRETARY
Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of
Expenditure,
New Delhi.
Contd.....3
Page-3
3. Mr.MC Bansal
THE CHAIRMAN
Ordnance Factory Board
10-A, Shahid Khudiram Bose Road
Kolkata – 700 001.
4. Mr. B P Babu
THE GENERAL MANAGER
Ordnance Factory,
Tiruchirappalli
Tamil Nadu – 620016.
|
|
|
|
1. The Applicants submit that they are
the Applicants herein as well as in the main Original Application and as such they
are well aware of the facts of the case stated below.
2. The
Applicants filed the above OA for issuing suitable orders directing the 3rd respondent to pass orders on merits
on the representation of the applicants dated 09-06-2012 and 24-11-2012
on the grievances of their members regarding the Cadre Review of Junior Works
Managers in the 3rd respondent Ordnance Factory Board, if necessary,
by providing the 1st Applicants an opportunity of hearing on their
grievances. The 1st Applicant is the Secretary of National Defence
Group “B” Gazetted Officers Association, Ordnance Factory Tiruchirappalli
Branch, and to pass such other or further order or orders in the interest of
justice. The applicants also filed an
M.A.No.356/2013 to join together and file the above O.A. by them.
3. The
1st Applicant is the Secretary, National Defence Group “B” Gazetted
Officers Association, Ordnance Factory
Tiruchirappalli Branch the 2nd Applicants is its member representing
all the other members of the association as the members of the association is
having common grievances as ventilated
in the above O.A. The respondents
failed to look into the genuine background of the.
applicants on the basis of their
representation dated 09.06.2012 and 24.11.2012 as it affected the working
condition and monetary benefits and future prospects of the cadre. The respondents having re-designated the cadre
in 1994 from Non-Gazetted to Gazetted status but reducing their pay-scale
status that was prevailing till that period above the group “A” entrants
pay-scale became highly arbitrary and not sustainable.
4. The
respondents have maintained an erroneous SRO for JWMs in which the status of JWMs
has been shown as “ministerial” which means clerical staffs, while the cadre is
originally discharging “managerial” duties.
The Direct recruitment to the cadre of JWM is made through UPSC with an
essential qualification Degree in Engineering/ technology but the respondents
maintaining this “inferior” status for JWM caused to implement lower pay status
for the cadre by the recent 5th & 6th CPCs. Misguided
by the above position, the 6th CPC also recommended merging of this
“Managerial” Gazetted cadre along with supervisory cadre of Non-Gazetted group.
The respondents In their report dated
27.08.2014 submitted to 7th CPC vide No.02/7th CPC/Q/PCC wherein
vide para 5.15.2 agrees that “the post of JWM was wrongly treated as one of
the supervisory levels. But The fact is
that JWM do perform the managerial role at the shop floor and offices in OFs”.
The 6th CPC was implemented with effect from 01.01.2006 now the
respondents come forward and revealing the truth that the merging was wrongly
done. The applicants are morally affected and also put to financial loss from
01.01.2006 onwards, the effect date of 6th CPC, and thus the
applicants approach this court of law for justice. The respondent in their
report submitted to 6th CPC as mentioned above vide para 5.15.3 also
agrees that “ Further ,the merger of 5010 numbers of Asst.Foreman with JWM
has adversely affected the promotional prospects of JWMS” and vide para
5.15.4 of the report the respondent
proposes to create two posts in between JWM and AWM such as Section Manager and Sr.Section
Manager. The applicant submit that the
above creation of posts (2746 in PBII with GP 5400/- and 1000posts in PBIII
with GP5400) is a unilateral decision by OFB, neither they have
considered to increase the AWM posts
as warranted as per DOPT norms and as
per the recommendation of Cadre Review Committee, nor they have considered the
suggestions in the proposal submitted by
the applicants Association.
5. The
applicants further submit that their organization has 41 Ordnance Factories
spread all over India which is controlled by Ordnance Factory Board,
functioning under Ministry of Defence, comprising of the various category of
employees as elaborately stated in the above OA. The applicants submit that
there has been no change ever happened in respect of the structure of
other cadres, other than that of
applicants in the past, as any change / cadre review is decided after ample
discussions in various JCM forums for those cadres. Similarly the carrier prospects of Group “A”
officers are being taken care by submitting timely proposals directly to
DOPT/MOD as desired by them time to time being of organizational executive
capacities rested upon themselves.
Whereas the applicants are having no such platforms of JCM forums and
their proposals are framed unilaterally by the respondents without considering
the suggestions of the affected cadre’s Associations and forwarded directly to
DOPT/MOD and not being dealt with proper attention or discussed with the
affected cadre and often the proposals are designed as per their whims and
fancy for whom the applicants cadre is the feeder category and the same
attitude is still continued by the 3rd respondent i.e OFB. As per Recruitment Rule and SRO 227 of AWM
(Asst. Works Manager, which is an entry post to Group “A” cadre), 50% posts are
filled through promotions from the applicants cadre of JWM and 50% through
Direct Recruitment through UPSC, being the case, the present strength of IOFS
consists of only 326 promotes out of the
total strength of 1717. Also the
Respondents, consider JWM cadre as “Managerial Cadre” as far as the duties and
functioning are concerned in order to share their responsibilities, but
maintains an SRO/RR as “Ministerial” on record, which is different from actual,
there by misguiding the MOD the 1st Respondent, so that the carrier
prospects are decided by MOD or CPC based on the above erroneous status.
The UPSC vide
their advertisement no 08/2013 dated
8-14 June 2013 through Employment News has mentioned Duties of JWM as
follows:
“DUTIES: A Senior Group ‘B’ (Gazetted) post having
duties of managerial nature. A JWM is
required to work as a Head of Section/Workshop/Office or a Group in the Workshop/Section/Office
and be fully responsible for proper working of the Group allotted to him. For this duties and responsibilities, he is
to report to Divisional Officer who is a Group ‘A’ Officer”. From the above, it is evident that the Respondent treated the JWM
cadre as “Managerial” cadre.
6. The applicants, without having any
platform for constitutional representation, their grievances were never heard
by the respondents and their STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS (SRO) and RECRUITMENT
RULES (RR) were framed by the respondents without considering to the merits of
the cadre in respect of duties & responsibilities and their status were maintained as
“Ministerial” and “Supervisory” while the duties of JUNIOR WORKS MANAGER’s are
of “Managerial” nature with essential Qualification as Engineering Degree as
UPSC selection criteria for DR to the post.
The applicants further submit that the 6th CPC, referring to
the above erroneous SRO/RR, recommended for Merging of JWM (Group ‘B’ Gazetted)
with supervisory cadre of Asst. Foreman (Non-Gazetted) which is now realized by
the respondent as “wrongly done”.
7. The merging of the Gazetted post of JWM with
the Non-Gazetted post of Assistant Foreman(AF) which was implemented by order
dated 04-02-2011, but till date the SRO provisions to that effect has not been
formulated leading to adverse impact on the career prospects of the JWMs. After merging the total strength of JWM is
7694 Nos against the pre-merged strength of 2764. This abnormal ratio warrants
the increase in the number of posts in the immediate promotional avenue available
for JWM i.e. AWM.
8. The existing ratio between JWM & AWM promotional quota is
7694 : 185 (40 : 1) This is phenomenally abnormal. The steepness causes
frustration and adversely affects the effectiveness of
the organisation at a critical level. Legally it is violation of Article 14 &
Article 16 of the Constitution as adequate promotional opportunities do not
exist. Viewed from any angle the ratio between the JWM and AWM(PROMOTEES) is required to be
changed. As per DOPT norms it is 3-5 times of higher grade in case of selection
method of promotion and by that norm the required number of AWM posts is to be increased to 1200 at a minimum for
promotion quota alone. In spite of the
above position, the respondents while
accepting merging as a mistake, never showed any interest to increase the strength of AWM.
9. The
applicants further state that the Govt. Has ordered to conduct cadre review to
all departments in the year 2011 vide DOPT order No.35034/9/2010 (D) Dated 10th
February 2011 but till date the Cadre Review has not been finalised by the
respondents. This is because the applicants have not been provisioned with any
representation in JCM and there is no need for the respondents to answer the
applicants with responsibility as such the applicants carrier prospects are at the mercy and whims of the Group “A”
IOFS Cadre, who is the cadre controlling authority and every proposal for cadre
review/SRO amendment etc are proposed unilaterally without considering the
suggestions put forth by the affected cadre of JWM. The applicants therefore
made their first representation to the respondents on 09-06-2012 followed by a
detailed representation on 24.11.2012 and various memorandum by their
Associations from all over India with
legitimate back grounds explaining how they are entitled to the cadre review as
pleaded by them with facts and figures as elaborately stated therein. The injustice borne to the applicants cadre
was in 1994 (During 4th CPC) was elaborately stated in paras 4.8 to
4.13 of the Original Application filed by the applicants, which they crave
leave of this Hon’ble Tribunal to read it as part and parcel of this contempt
application in the interest of justice.
10. The
applicants submit that the present
position of their cadre’s degradation imposed on them gradually over a period of years by the
respondents, who were empowered to formulate and
Propose
Recruitment Rules/SRO, without having any reference with respect to
duties, functions,
responsibilities and various criteria like
promotional avenues, the proposals of the affected cadre of applicants and also
by maintaining erroneous SRO, RR etc., were intentionally creating adversities
to this cadre for the last 20 years since 1994 and brought this cadre to a most
deteriorated condition in respect of pay and status, while other lower cadres
in other departments have upgraded lower posts to higher status through proper
cadre reviews ie even from NGO status to Group ‘A’ gazetted status, (Hindi
Officer, Asst. Nursing Superintendent in CGHS). The applicants Association
NDGBGOA have submitted various memorandums requesting the respondents to
consider the suggestions while formulating the cadre review, and to take into
consideration the Govt. Scheme of
ACP/MACPs as a minimum benchmark. But
the respondent has made a unilateral proposal which if implemented will have
further adverse effect on the cadre. Hence
the applicants crave to pray the
honourable Tribunal for the followings:
i)
To intervene and direct the
respondents to complete the cadre review by considering the suggestions of the
affected cadre such as, to take the Govt. scheme of ACP/MACP as bench mark for
the cadre review, and to fix the JWMs pay Band/Grade pay above AWM similar to
the position prevailed 20 years before i.e. in the year 1994 and to effect the
Historical hierarchy. The carrier prospects of the applicants had been kept
stagnated intentionally for long period due to the “merging” of JWM Gazetted
cadre with Asst.Foreman NGO cadre which the respondent realises now as “wrongly
done”. Due to this merger, the pay of a JWM, a managerial cadre has come down
than that of an industrial employee who was 3 to 4 stage below JWM which
position never existed till 5th CPC. It is pertinent to mention here
that the Apex court has also observed that the pay of supervisor cannot be lesser than that of a
person being supervised. The Applicants submit that the injustice due to merging is borne by the cadre from 01.01.2006 and hence the relief also is to be allowed to them from 01.01.2006.
As is the case of cadre review of Industrial Employees which was
implemented already in the year 2012 with retrospective effect from 01.01.2006
by the respondents.
ii)
To rectify the erroneous
entries in the existing SRO/RR of JWM and implement the present cadre review
with respect to functional requirement of the organisation. The respondents has
“ merged” the
applicants’ cadre of “Managerial” nature
with Supervisory cadre by maintaining an erroneous SRO with “ministerial” status.Due to the “merging” the number of JWM post have
substantially increased to more than three times of the previous strength and thus
the present cadre review should
increase the numbers of promotional post of AWMs proportionately.
The 3rd respondent have not yet increased the number of AWM post
proportionately as per the norms of DOPT
and also as mentioned by the cadre review committee, hence the applicants pray
this honourable court to direct the 3rd respondent to increase the
promotional post proportionately and to implement the promotions as per SRO
227.
iii) To
direct the respondent to ensure shop floor Training to all the Direct Recruit
AWMs and to conduct written and practical test at the end of the probation
period as stipulated in the SRO 227 of AWMs, as their practical exposure during
their training period at NADP Ambajhari is nil and the stipulations in the SRO
227 is not being followed and hence the competency of the officer is not made accountable.
iv) The
present cadre review should consider the recommendation of “Residency period
stipulated for each post by the 6th CPC as per the merit and duties
and functions of the cadres, including the benefit of Non Functional up
Gradation as done for Group “A” in case of non availability of vacancies for
promotion .
11. The
respondents, inspite of the best efforts by the applicants, have not passed any
orders on the merits of their
representations which greatly prejudiced them. Under the above circumstances
the applicants have approached this Hon’ble
Tribunal by filing O.A.No.871 of 2013 to get redress of their grievances in the
interest of justice.
12. The Applicants submit that this Hon’ble Tribunal was pleased to
pass final orders in the above O.A.No.871 of 2013 on 18-06-2013 while deciding the M.A.No.356
of 2013 filed for joining together to
file a single OA and directing the 3rd respondent to consider and
dispose of the representation of the applicants dated 09-06-2012 and 24-11-2012
after giving an opportunity of hearing to the 1st Applicants, in
accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of
copy of the order. On behalf of the
respondents Mr. S. Muthuswamy, Senior Standing Counsel for Central Government
took notice at the time of disposal of
the O.A.
13. The Applicants submit that the copy of the
order was made ready by the registry on 03-07-2013 and delivered to their counsel
thereafter. The respondents Counsel also
received the copy of the order subsequent to which in turn should have been
communicated to the respondents. The Applicants sent to the 3rd
respondent a representation dated 20-12-2013 along with the copy of the order
of this Hon’ble Tribunal made in the above OA.
The Applicants also communicated the order to the 3rd
respondent along with their letter
dated 20/22-12-2013 through proper channel, namely through the 4th
respondent, which was received and acknowledged in his office on
23-12-2013. The Applicants also
approached the 3rd and 4th respondents in person on
several occasions and requested them to consider their suggestions on cadre
review (submitted memorandum vide dated 20-12-2013) and pass appropriate
favourable orders on their grievances and to propose a meaningful cadre review.
The
Applicants submit that even after the lapse of more than eleven months the
respondents have not passed any orders on the representation of the Applicants
dated 09-06-2012 and
24-11-2012 and they were not officially called for any hearing on their
grievances. The
applicants are constantly put to great mental agony and their working
psychology is badly
affected by the ill treatment received by
them at the hands of the respondents in their work. The
Applicants submit that the act of the Respondents herein in not obeying the
orders of this Hon’ble Tribunal amounts to flouting the same. The Respondents are duty bound to obey the
directions issued by this Hon’ble Tribunal and their contemptuous act of not
implementing the same is actionable under section 17 of the Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985 and punishable under section 4 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
14. The Applicants therefore pray that
this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to punish the Respondents for contempt of
Court for not obeying the orders of this Hon’ble Tribunal made in
M.A.No.356/2013 and O.A.No.871 of 2013 dated 18-06-2013 and direct the Respondents
to pass orders on merit on the representations of the Applicants and pass such
other or further order or orders in the circumstances of the case and in the
interest of justice.
Dated at
Chennai this the 28th day of August 2014.
Counsel for Applicants Applicants
