ORDER

(As per Hon’ble Mr.B.V.Sudhakar, Administrative Member)

2. The OA is filed challenging the decision of the respondents in not counting the past service rendered by the applicant in the post of Computor to the service of subsequently joined post of Data Entry Operator (for short “DEO”) Grade B.

3. Brief facts of the case are that, the applicant was appointed on adhoc basis as Computor on 28.1.1981 in Census Wing. Later, applicant was selected and appointed as DEO Grade B in Computor Wing on 1.4.1983. Applicant claims that on approaching the Tribunal in OA 216/1992 adhoc services rendered as Computor were regularised and accordingly the applicant is treated as working in the grade of DEO Grade B since January 1981. The respondents came up with a policy on 31.8.1992 ( for short 1992 policy) and according to which he has to be accorded seniority based on the services rendered in the Computor grade, but was denied. Besides, Tribunal was not informed of the 1992 policy when the cited OA was adjudicated. Hence applicant represented on 18.7.2013 which was rejected by an incompetent authority on 26.9.2013. Aggrieved the OA has been filed.

4. The contentions of the applicant are that the representation delving on a policy matter was rejected by an incompetent authority and that too by wrongly interpreting the policy and thereby indulging in arbitrary exercise of power. The policy decision was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal while adjudicating OA 216/1992. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has submitted a memo dated 29.6.2015 issued by the Min. of Home Affairs to further the contentions made.

5. Respondents in the reply statement state that the applicant was recruited to the post of Computor in the technical wing on adhoc basis as a direct recruit. On introduction of the DDE system in 1982, applicant was appointed as operator, later re-designated as Data Entry Operator, in the DDE cadre as direct recruit on 31.1.1983. The post of Computor and DEO are two separate cadres with separate channels of promotion. Complying with the directions of the Tribunal in OA 216/1992 the adhoc services of the applicant rendered as Computor were regularised on 31.5.1993. Further, as per the direction of the Tribunal in OA 374/2008, under ACP scheme 2nd financial up-gradation was granted by taking into account the regular of services rendered in the Computor cadre. The Registrar General, India (RGI) vide lr dated 12.3.1991 gave instructions to regularise services of adhoc appointees in the posts of Statistical Assistants and Computors, who fulfilled prescribed conditions at the time of initial recruitment, from a prospective date after screening of the CRs and that the adhoc services rendered can be considered for the purpose of seniority and promotion to the higher grade. Thereafter this benefit was extended to the other cadre employees vide RGI letter dated 31.8.1992. However, the respondents did not act on the letter dated 12.3.1991 of the RGI, in respect of regularisation of the adhoc services of Computors, since OA 108/1990 was pending adjudication and on its disposal, services of those eligible were regularised. Similarly that of the applicant were regularised w.e.f. 28.1.1981 as per directions in OA 216/1992. Therefore the RGI letter dated 31.8.1992 (for short 1992 lr) is not applicable to the case of the applicant since it deals with regularisation of services of adhoc employees appointed for 1981 census from a prospective date and not from a retrospective date. Hence, it was found to be irrelevant to be produced when OA 216/1992 was under adjudication. The representation made by the applicant on 18.7.2013 was rejected by the Assistant Director vide lr. dated 26.9.2013, who is the Head of the Office, based on the Tribunal observation in OAs 216/1992 & OA 523/1994, wherein the relief in the present OA was declined. After 21 years the applicant has filed the present OA to seek the same relief as was sought in OA Nos.216/1992 & OA 523/1994 and