• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, KOCHI O.A.No. 18 of 2017 TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017/7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, MEMBER (J) HON'BLE VICE ADMIRAL M.P.MURALIDHARAN, AVSM & BAR, NM, MEMBER (A) SHYAM SUNDER …........ APPLICANT AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. HAZARIL LAL TAILOR, CPOAF NO. 175499-N. INS VIKRAMADITYA, C/O. NAVY OFFICE, NAVAL BASE, KARWAR, KARNATAKA – 581 308. BY ADV. SRI. K.S. HARIDAS versus 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI – 110 011. 2. THE CHIEF OF NAVAL STAFF, FOR DIRECTOR OF PERSONNEL INTEGRATED HEADQUARTERS OF MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, (NAVY) DIRECTORATE OF PERSONNEL, NEW DELHI – 110 011. ...…...RESPONDENTS 3. THE FLAG OFFICER COMMANDING IN-CHIEF (FOR SENIOR STAFF OFFICER (PERSONNEL) HEADQUARTERS, SOUTHERN NAVAL COMMAND, NAVAL BASE, KOCHI – 682 004. O.A. No. 18 of 2017 - 2 - 4. THE FLAG OFFICER COMMANDING IN-CHIEF (FOR WESTERN NAVAL COMMAND) HEADQUARTERS, WESTERN NAVAL COMMAND, BALLARD PIER, NEAR TIGER GATE, NAVAL DOCKYARD, MUMBAI – 400 001. 5. THE COMMODORE FOR SSO (ROG) BUREAU OF SAILORS, CHEETAH CAMP, MANKHURD, MUMBAI – 400 800. 6. THE DIRECTOR NAVAL INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICAL TECHNOLOGY NAVAL BASE, KOCHI, KOCHI – 682 004. 7. THE COMMANDING OFFICER INS VIKRAMADITYA, C/O. NAVY OFFICE, NAVAL BASE, KARWAR, KARNATAKA, PIN – 581 308. 8. THE COMMANDING OFFIER INS DEGA (FOR STATION AIR ENGINEERING OFFICER), NAD POST, VISAKHAPATANAM, ANDRA PRADESH, PIN – 530 009. ADDL. 9th AND 10th RESPONDENTS IMPLEADED. *ADDL. R9. VIVEKANANDA SAHU MCPOAF – IIP NO.175289K BSF/INS RAJALI, POST. CAMP (ARKONAM) TAMILNADU – 631006. • ADDL.R10. G.D TRIPATHI MCPOAF -IIP NO.171866F, INS SHIKRA/330 SQDN COLABA, MUMBAI – 05. ADDL.R9 AND R10 IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER IN MA. 600/2017 IN O.A.18/2017 DATED 20.10.2017. BY ADV. DR. RAJENDRA KUMAR M., SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL O.A. No. 18 of 2017 - 3 - O R D E R VAdm M.P.MURALIDHARAN, MEMBER (A) 1. The Original Application has been filed by Syam Sundar, CPOAF No. 175499-N, a serving Senior Sailor of the Navy, essentially aggrieved at not being selected for promotion to the rank of MCPO (AF) II. 2. The applicant was enrolled in the Navy as MER entry on 05 January 1991 and in due course was promoted to the rank of Chief Petty Officer (AF) with effect from 01 July 2011. The applicant was considered for promotion to the rank of MCPO II by the Selection Boards held in 2014, 2015 and 2016, but was not placed on the select list. 3. Sri. K.S. Haridas, the learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the applicant who has O.A. No. 18 of 2017 - 4 - completed nearly 26 years in the Navy has always excelled professionally. Apart from serving as Instructor at NIAT, Kochi, the applicant has also served on board various ships as part of their operational flights, including during Kargil Operations. The applicant, who is currently serving on board the Aircraft Carrier of the Navy, is a qualified technical supervisor on different air craft. Despite his consistent high professional performance, the applicant was not selected for promotion to the rank of MCPO II. The learned counsel also submitted that the applicant despite medical advise to avoid lifting weights and prolonged standing duties (Annexure A5), has continued to perform his duties as an Instructor. 4. The applicant on not being promoted to the rank of MCPO II by the Selection Board in 2013, submitted a Redressal of Grievance (Annexure A6). O.A. No. 18 of 2017 - 5 - Since he did not receive any response to his ROG, the applicant sought information under the RTI Act (Annexure A7). However, he was informed by the respondents that most of the answers to his questionnaire cannot be provided under the RTI Act (Annexures A7(a)/5). 5. The learned counsel further submitted that the applicant had earlier served in the Material Organisation at Mumbai. While the applicant carried out his duties with utmost diligence, he later became aware that the duties carried out by him would not earn additional weightage for MCPO selection. The learned counsel submitted that in case of aviation sailors, the appointments where they are entitled to additional weightage has been specified (Annexures A8, A9). The learned counsel further submitted that the applicant has no control as to where he should be posted and O.A. No. 18 of 2017 - 6 - therefore all personnel should get equal opportunity for serving in billets which give them additional weightage. 6. The learned counsel contended that the applicant had been posted to various billets without true application of mind. Despite the fact that he did not have marks to undergo Method Course which is mandatory for instructional duties, the applicant was appointed for instructional duties. The learned counsel contended that if the applicant was appointed as Instructor he should have been granted points for such duties, but was not granted the same. However, another Sailor who did not have the necessary qualification was sent for the Method Course and was also awarded instructional duty point which enabled him to get selected as MCPO II in 2016. While the applicant has been carrying out duties as Instructor and was also recommended for nomination to Training Technology O.A. No. 18 of 2017 - 7 - (Sailors) Course (Annexure A13), he was not deputed for the same. The applicant, despite being non qualified instructor, conducted classes for all trainees which included officer trainees. Despite all these, he was denied promotion to the rank of MCPO II. 7. The learned counsel further submitted that the Navy Order which specifies eligibility criterion for promotion to the post of MCPO II (Annexure A16), does not state anywhere that sea service is compulsory and further specifies that a person who is carrying out instructional duties should be given points for the same when considered for selection. The learned counsel also submitted that his service records and ACRs have not been updated as evident from the Website of CABS (Annexure 17). The applicant therefore believes that lack of the same may also have adversely affected his chance of promotion. O.A. No. 18 of 2017 - 8 - 8. The learned counsel also submitted that the applicant perceives that his ROG or his appointment to various billets have not been dealt with in the appropriate manner and he has also not been provided with the documents sought for. The learned counsel therefore prayed that all the documents pertaining to the selection of Sailors to the post of MCPO (AF) II be scrutinised and the applicant be declared eligible for promotion with retrospective effect from 2014 with consequential benefits. 9. The respondents in their reply statement submitted that the applicant, who had been enrolled in the Navy as MER entry on 05 January 1991, was promoted to the rank of CPO(AF) with effect from 01 July 2011. The applicant was considered for selection to the post of MCPO by the Selection Boards held in 2014, 2015 and 2016. He was, however, not select O.A. No. 18 of 2017 - 9 - listed as he was low in inter se merit. The present term of engagement of the applicant is till 31 January 2019. 10. The respondents further submitted that MCPO and equivalent ranks are the only select list ranks in the Navy for Sailors. Selection is based on overall performance of a Sailor and the Board takes cognizance of various attributes of eligible Sailors. Weightages are awarded to specified criteria, in accordance with the approach paper promulgated by the Navy Headquarters prior to the Selection Board. The Selection Board then prepares a merit list. The applicant was found to be low in the order vis-a-vis the vacancies available for promotion and therefore he was not selected for promotion to the rank of MCPO. The respondents further submitted that in view of the ROG raised by the applicant, all his records were examined thoroughly and cross-checked. The applicant has been O.A. No. 18 of 2017 - 10 - awarded correct weightages by the Selection Boards and missed out on promotion only because of inter se merit. 11. The respondents further submitted that many of the contentions raised by the applicant in his O.A. were without merit. His claim that he had always excelled professionally and academically, are not borne out from the records available. It was only in a few courses that he excelled. Since the applicant had not secured the requisite percentage in his Leading 'Q' course and in the POAF Board, he was not considered for Method Course. The respondents further submitted that all Senior Sailors posted to NIAT, are to undertake both instructional and administrative duties. They are also employed on instructional duties for training of specific type of aircraft, based on their experience. The respondents further submitted that even though Bureau of Sailors endeavours to place Sailors in sea time billets, O.A. No. 18 of 2017 - 11 - it is not always feasible to do so in view of the requirement of providing manpower to other non sea billets. The applicant had served more than 5 years continuously in sea billets and, therefore, was transferred to NIAT to meet the manning requirements of that unit. 12. Respondents also submitted that the applicant in March 2007 when transferred to Goa from Mumbai, had requested for retention at Mumbai on compassionate grounds. Accordingly, the applicant was sent to MO(MB). Therefore his transfer to a billet in Goa which was considered as sea time for Aviation sailors, was cancelled. Respondents further submitted that individual concerns of Sailors, such as the applicant, were always addressed, but within the overall constraints and requirements of the Navy.

Load more

  18

Copy Link