AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges

    The Pondicherry State PWD Executive, and Technical Staffs Union, (Reg. No.828/RTU/93), rep by the General Secretary, V. Narayanasamy, S/o Vadamalai, 19, South Street, Veeerampattinam, Puducherry. v. The Union Territory of Puducherry, rep by the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department,

    (Pronounced by The Hon'ble Mr. K. Elango, Judicial Member) Challenging the merger of certain Group D posts into a single cadre of Multi Tasking Staff by the impugned order dated 8.4.2013, Pondicherry State PWD Executive and Technical Staff Union represented by its General Secretary and one P. Periyasamy who is one of the Member of the said Association have filed the OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for quashing of the said order and also pray for a direction to the respondent to merger the posts with the respective designations as stated in their representation dated 15.5.2013.

    2. The applicants are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 8.4.2013 whereby the following ten posts, Road Gangman, Luscar, Semi-skilled Workman, Helper(Mechanical), Helper(Civil), Laboratory Attendant, Laboratory Attender, Mason, Mazdoor and Cleaner in the Public Works Department of Government of Puducherry are merged into a single cadre of Multi-Tasking Staff(MTS for short) in the Pay Band of Rs.5200-20200 with a Grade Pay of Rs.1800/-. As a result of persons belonging to the 10 categories will be included in a common seniority list,promotions will be made with reference to such common seniority and that a person gets promotion to a post in which he has no experience at all and this will be detrimental to public interest. It is pointed out by them that in the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms(Personnel Wing), Government of Puducherry, the Sanitary Assistant and Sanitary Helper posts have been redesignated as MTS(House Keeping), Watchmen have been redesignated as MTC (Security), Peon and Attender have been redesignated as MTS(General). Hence,the applicants claim that the above said 10 categories have also to be redesignated as MTS (Luscar), MTS (Helper) and so on. The first applicant' Association made a representation dated 15.5.2013 requesting for merger with designation as explained in the representation. However, no action has been taken by the respondent. Hence the OA.

    3. The stand of the respondents is that the PWD, Puducherry has been engaging Casual Labourers right from 1995 on need basis as and when required and there was no minimum qualification prescribed for such engagement. As these Casual Labourers were absorbed into the following posts of Road Gangman, Luscar, Semi-skilled Workman, Helper (Mechanical), Helper(Civil), Laboratory Attendant/Attender, Mason, Mazdoor and Cleaner and no technical qualification were prescribed for these 10 posts for their absorption as and when vacancy in any of the said posts arises. It is stated by the respondents that in accordance with the Office Memorandum dated 30.4.2010 of DOPT and the instructions contained in the 6th Pay Commission's recommendations to the effect that all the erstwhile Group D posts in the Government will stand upgraded to Group C in Pay Band -1 with Grade Pay of Rs.1800/- along with the incumbents(after suitable training wherever required), the PWD Department of Government of Puducherry has scrupulously effected the merger of all the 10 posts and redesignated into single Multi Tasking Staff(Public Works) vide G.O.Ms No.25 dated 6.6.2014. They also refuted the contention of the applicants that on account of merger, promotions prospects will be affected for the category of Laboratory Attendant and Laboratory Attender having only 11 posts in the cadre. It is the contention of the respondents that they have not been taken against sanctioned posts or against any Recruitment Rules but have been engaged as Casual Labourers and later absorbed as and when vacancies arise in any of the posts in the said 10 categories and therefore whether a Road Gangman or a Laboratory Attendant is merely such fortuitous appointment against perpetuity. For the reasons stated, they prayed for dismissal of the OA.

    4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings.

    5. It is seen that the the 6th Pay Commission had recommended the upgradation of all Group D posts to Group C in Pay Band-1 with Grade of Rs.1800/- along with the incumbents, after suitable training whereever required. The other recommendations of the Commission are as follows: 1.There will be no further recruitment in Group D 2.The existing Group D posts will be placed in Group C Pay Band-1 with Grade Pay of Rs.1800. 3.The minimum qualification for appointment to this level will be either 10th pass or ITI equivalent 4.Multi-skilling, with one employee performing jobs hitherto performed by different Group D employees 5.Common Designation for these posts. Based on the recommendations, an Office Memorandum dated 30.4.2010 has been issued by the Department of Personnel and Training to all the Ministries to amend the Recruitment Rules for the erstwhile Group D posts as per the Model RRs and the recommendations of the Pay Commission. It is further stated in the Memorandum that Ministries/Departments may adopt the single designation of Multi Tasking Staff whose duties are similar in nature and where the officials can easily be switched from one task to another. It is also seen that the impugned order dated 8.4.2013 came to be issued merging 10 Group D posts in the respondent Department, in compliance with orders passed by the Hon'le High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No.5174 and 19421 of 2010. It view of the categorical statement made by the respondents in the reply filed by them that the promotions prospects will not be affected to any particular category among the 10 Group D posts, on account of merger since they will be absorbed as and when vacancies arise in any one of the posts in the said 10 categories, we are convinced that the apprehension of the applicants is ill founded.

    6. In the result, the applicants have not made out a case for the relief sought for by them. The OA is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (DR. P. PRABAKARAN) (K. ELANGO) MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J) 22.2.2017

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    The Pondicherry Stat... v. The Union Territory ...
    (Feb 22, 2017)