Union Of India v. Ajit Kumar Ojha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ---- W.P(S) NO. 7328 of 2012 -- Union of India .... ..... Petitioner. --Versus--- Ajit Kumar Ojha ..... Respondent. ------ CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY ----- For the Petitioner : M/s. Deepak Roshan, Sr.S.C.(IT) For the Respondents : M/s. M.M.Pal, Sr. Advocate. ----- Order No. 04 Dated :29th January, 2013 Defects are ignored. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi has rejected the contention of the petitioner that since Group 'D' post has been merged into Group 'C' post, therefore, the petitioner is not in a position to give appointment to the workman even in the light of the direction issued to the petitioner in the order dated 24.11.2008 passed in O.A.NO.10 of 2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on 29.08.2008 the Group 'D' post was merged into Group 'C' post and it is a separate cadre of Multi Tasking Skill post in terms of Notification dated 29.08.2008. The appointment to Group 'C' post is given by the Staff Selection Commission. The learned Tribunal held that O.A. was decided vide order dated 24.11.2008 and the order relied upon by the petitioner dated 29.08.2008, which was passed before the decision given in O.A.NO.10/2007 which was decided on 24.11.2008.In the contempt proceeding the order passed in the original application cannot be modified and the petitioner also did not move any application for modification of the order dated 24.11.2008 nor the petitioner submitted any review application. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the petitioner to comply the order dated 24.11.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner again reiterated in view of the merger of the Group 'D' into Group 'C' post which can be filled up by the process of selection and appointment by the Staff Selection Commission only. Therefore, the petitioner is not in a position to offer appointment to the workman. We are of the considered opinion that since the petitioner was entitled to appointment in Group 'D' and since that post has merged into Group 'C' post and till the order dated 24.11.2008 remains as it is, the workman is entitled to get the benefit which were available to the staffs of the Group 'D' post who also without there being any order from the Staff Selection Commission, got the post in Group 'C'. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any error in directing the petitioner to comply with the order dated 24.11.2008. It will be relevant to mention here that the petitioner also challenged the order dated 24.11.2008 by preferring writ petition before this Court being W.P(S) NO.3325/2009 which was dismissed on 23.11.2011 wherein direction was also given to implement the order. In that also there was no plea that workman cannot be given appointment in Group 'C' post by virtue of merger of Group 'D' post in Group 'C'. There is no merit in this petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (Prakash Tatia, C.J.) Biswas/SI ( Jaya Roy, J.)