N G Arumugam vs Ut Of Pondicherry

1 OA 310/245/2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00245/2020
th
Dated Friday the 9 day of October Two Thousand Twenty Six
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. M. SWAMINATHAN, MEMBER (J)
&
HON'BLE MR. M. L. SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (A)
N. G. Arumugam,
S/o. Govindasamy,
Residing at
No. 16, First Cross Street,
Marioamman Kovil Street,
Puducherry - 605 009. …Applicant
By Advocate M/s. M. Gnanasekar
Vs
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary to Government,
Community Development, Chief Secretariate,
Puducehrery - 605 001.
2. The Director,
Directorate of Rural Development,
Nellithope, Puducherry.
3. The Project Executive Officer,
O/o. Directorate of Rural Development,
Puducherry.
4. P. Ragini,
Block Development Officer,
Reddiyarpalayam, Puducherry.
5. A. Malar,
Block Development Officer,
Ariyankuppam, Puducherry.
6. The Block Development Officer,
Villianur, Puducherry. …Respondents

By Advocate Mr. R. Syed Mustafa

2 OA 310/245/2020
ORAL ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Member(J))
Heard both counsels.
2. This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the
following relief:
“i) To set aside the order No. Ο.Α. No.
121/DRD/Estt./A1/2018/89 dated 26.02.2018 passed
nd
by the 2 respondent;
ii) To direct the respondents to regularize the Adhoc
promotion of the applicant to the post of Grama Sevak
Grade-II with effect from 10.01.2006.
iii) Further direct the respondents to grant MACP benefits
on completion of 10 years from 10.01.2016 and
consequently extend the benefits of pay fixation as per
the recommendation of the 7th Pay Commission with
effect from 01.01.2006 and pay all consequential arrears
of pay and other monetary benefits to which the
applicant is entitled to; and
iv) to pass such further orders as are necessary to meet
the ends of justice and
v) Award costs and thus render justice.”

3. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant are as
follows:
The applicant joined DRDA as a Site Maistry on 07.11.1985
through the Employment Exchange and was granted temporary
status on 20.10.1995. He was appointed as a Sevak on
14.09.1999, but challenged the appointment of his juniors,

3 OA 310/245/2020
seeking appointment with effect from the same date and
consequential benefits, including seniority. The Central
Administrative Tribunal allowed his application on 26.02.2002,
holding that seniority as a Site Maistry should determine priority
for selection/absorption as Sevak. The High Court dismissed the
Government’s writ petition on 27.08.2009, and the Supreme
Court dismissed the SLP on 23.11.2012. Pursuant thereto, the
applicant was appointed as Sevak notionally from 14.09.1999
and promoted as Grama Sevak Grade-II notionally from
10.01.2006. Despite completing probation on 06.08.2015, the
applicant alleges that his services were not regularized and that
he continued on an ad hoc basis. He further claims that he was
assigned night-watchman duties and transferred to the Revenue
Department without proper authorization, thereby affecting his
service benefits, pay fixation, seniority, and eligibility for MACP
and Seventh Pay Commission benefits. The applicant submitted
several representations seeking regularization, pay fixation on
par with his juniors, and other consequential benefits. In O.A.
No. 121 of 2017, the Tribunal directed the respondents on
03.02.2017 to consider his representation dated 25.11.2016 in
accordance with law. However, his request was rejected on

4 OA 310/245/2020
26.02.2018, reportedly on grounds including non-submission of
self-appraisal forms. The applicant disputes this, asserting that
he submitted the required reports for periods when he performed
the duties of Work Inspector and Grama Sevak Grade-II, but no
self-appraisal form was applicable to his night-watchman duties.
Despite further representations and correspondence regarding
his confidential reports and service particulars, the applicant
alleges that his grievances remain unresolved. Accordingly, he
challenges the rejection order dated 26.02.2018 and seeks
appropriate directions for regularization of service, pay fixation,
seniority, and all consequential service benefits. Hence the
present O.A.
4. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned
counsel for the applicant submits that in para 5 of the reply, the
respondents have stated that the service book of the applicant
has already been submitted to the Director of Accounts
Treasuries, Puducherry and the action of granting MACP will be
initiated and granted as per the MACP Rules.

5 OA 310/245/2020
5. In view of the above, we direct the respondents to consider
the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt
of the copy of the order.
6. The OA is disposed of with directions as above. No order as
to costs.
(M. L. Srivastava) (M. Swaminathan)
Member (A) Member (J)
09.10.2026
Digitally signed
by LOKESH M
Date:
2026.11.02
15:12:09 +05'30'
LOKESH M
COURT MASTER
CAT CB