Geeta Lall v. The Union Of India And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] ...
WP.CT/2/2024 Geeta Lall Vs.
The Union of India and others Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar ... for the petitioner Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty Mr. D. Dwivedi ... for the Administration January 29, 2024 [SR] Item No.1 The petitioner has assailed an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench dated 7th July, 2023 whereby the petitioner approached the Tribunal praying for setting aside of an Office Order dated 17th March, 2015 passed by the Director (Information & Publicity), Andaman and Nicobar Administration.
The petitioner's case before the Tribunal was that the petitioner was entitled to the post of Public Relation Officer since the petitioner had discharged the work and duties of a Public Relations Officer from January 2007 - April 2014. The petitioner was engaged as a Librarian in Grade-III by the Administration in 2004. The petitioner meanwhile obtained the qualification of the higher post/Public Relation Officer and was issued a certificate by the Administration on 8th January, 2008 certifying that the petitioner has dealt with the work related to media, press etc. and that the petitioner is conversant with the matters related to media and press. The petitioner preferred an Original Application before the CAT seeking salary and allowances for the post of Group-B i.e. Gazetted post of Public Relation Officer in the concerned pay band from January 2007.
This is also the case made out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
Learned counsel appearing for the Administration seeks to sustain the impugned order on the ground that the
petitioner has never performed any work related to the higher office/Public Information Officer during her tenure i.e. from 2004 - 2014. Counsel submits that the Tribunal took into account relevant considerations and thought it fit to reject the prayer of the petitioner. Counsel relies on the reply given by the Administration before the CAT where specific statements were made with regard to the petitioner not discharging the duty of Public Relations Officer.
We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and relevant material placed before us, particularly the impugned order dated 7th July, 2023.
The impugned order records that the allocation of work given to the petitioner (applicant before the Tribunal) was in the nature of additional activities to the petitioner's work as Librarian in Grade-III and the word "Public Relations Officer" does not appear in any of these work allocation orders. The Tribunal also holds that mere possession of qualification for a particular post cannot be the basis of a claim to the pay and grade of that post.
We however find that the Tribunal has failed to take note of three office orders on 30th January, 2004, 5th November, 2007 and 7th November, 2007 which specifically record that the petitioner would perform all the work with regard to public relations, most specifically "press club, advertisement policy and issuance of press/identity cards". The third order dated 7th November, 2007 specifically records that "all matters with regard to advertisement rules are being allocated to the petitioner instead of Sr.
Correspondent". The Tribunal also failed to give due weightage to the certificate dated 8th January, 2008 certifying that the petitioner performed all the works related to the media and press and is also fully conversant with the matters related to media and press and holds necessary qualifications in the form of Diploma in Advertisement and Public Relations. The Tribunal, on the other hand, found that the respondents had categorically denied that the petitioner was given the charge of Public Relations Officer or that the
petitioner had ever performed the duties of the Public Relation Officer.
We find these findings to be contrary to the records placed before us.
The ground on which Arindam Chattopadhyay and others vs. Union of India 2013 (4) SCC 152 has been distinguished by the Tribunal is also incorrect and contrary to the material placed before us. We therefore deem it fit to set aside the impugned order dated 7th July, 2023 and direct the Tribunal to revisit and rehear the OA/351/00158/2015/AN upon considering all the materials which were placed before us and were before the Tribunal at the relevant point of time and come to a fresh decision within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. The Tribunal should also consider Order no.46 dated 1st May, 2014 which specifically lists the duties of Public Relation Officers in light of what we have stated above. The petitioner shall communicate this order by 31st January 2024.
WP.CT/2/2024 is accordingly disposed of in terms of the above.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertakings. ( Moushumi Bhattacharya, J. ) ( Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J. )