Union of India & Ors. v. Indra Prakesh

Delhi High Court · 29 Oct 2015 · 2015:DHC:11377-DB
G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal
W.P.(C) 3084/2013
2015:DHC:11377-DB
administrative appeal_allowed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court modified the CAT's order directing reconsideration of a Group B officer's promotion claim, emphasizing adherence to rules and vacancy positions without mandating automatic promotion.

Full Text
Translation output
It, $-9 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 3084/2013
JUDGMENT
dated 29"' October, 2015 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Petitioners
Through : Mr. Jagjit Singh, CGSC with Mr. A.S.
Dateer, Advocate
versus
INDRA PRAKESH Respondent
Through : Mr. M.R. Singhwith Mr. Badal Sharma, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL G.S.SISTANI. J {ORAL)

1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 02.08.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to for short as 'the Tribunal'). The respondent had filed an OA before the Tribunal, which was allowed by an order dated 02.08.2011, when the following directions were issued: «

"9. We have given consideration to the arguments made and perused the material on record before us. The applicant was promoted to Group 'B' post on 30.1.2009 and it requires a residency of six years service as Group 'B' before one is considered for promotion to the next grade. The applicant is claiming consideration for promotion against the vacancies assessed for the period from 1.7.2008 to 30.6.2009. Since the applicant was appointed in Group 'B' cadre in 2001, he had completed the requisite six years residency as Group 'B' Officer. As per the vacancy position given in the preceding paragraph, the panel of 8 persons was formed for the aforesaid period and the name of the applicant was at the bottom of the list. It is not understood as to how the claim of the applicant was ignored once he had completed the eligibility condition as SC category

W.P.(C) No.3084/2013 2015:DHC:11377-DB ^ k I Officer. Though the orders were issued subsequently on 7.12.2010 promoting the applicant to Senior Scale on ad hoc basis, but this consideration could have been given to him as on 30.1.2009 as well. We feel that the action of the respondents is not sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, we direct the respondents to reconsider the matter and in case the applicant is found eligible for promotion as on 30.1.2009, he be given due promotion from that date when reportedly other similarly places Group 'B' Junior Scale Officers were promoted to Senior Scale ignoring the applicant. In case the applicant is found eligible for promotion, he will be entitled to all consequential benefits including the retiral benefits. Since the applicant has not impleaded the persons likely to be affected in case his prayer for quashing the order dated 30.1.2009 is accepted, therefore, the same cannot be done. With these observations, the OA is partly allowed. The respondents are directed to comply with the directions within aperiod oftwo months from the date ofreceipt ofa copy ofthis order. No costs."

2. The respondent is a Group B Cadre Officer of Northern Railway in the Grade of Rs.7,500/- to Rs.l 1,500/-. According to the OA filed, after qualifying the Departmental Test the respondent claimed to be the seniormost amongst the SC category Junior Scale Group B Officers. The complaint of the respondent before the Tribunal was that on 30.01.2009, Group BJunior Scale Officers were promoted to Senior Scale Officers, but the respondent was deliberately ignored although reserve posts were available. The counsel for the petitioners has strongly urged before us today that a panel was formed to fill up the 8vacancies, but the respondent was at the bottom ofthe panel at Serial No.11, and the 8vacancies were filled up as per the requirement and availability of posts. He submits that the respondent could not have been promoted as he was at the bottom of the panel.

3. fV.P.CQ No,3084/20I[3]

4. Be that as it may, after some hearing in the matter, it is agreed that the present writ petition be disposed ofwith the modification ofthe order dated 02.08.2011 passed by the Tribunal to the extent that the order of the Tribunal would be complied with in accordance with law and the rule position and the directions of the Tribunal will not be read as a direction to promote the respondent.

5. The respondent's case would be considered within a period of eight weeks from today.

6. The writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. CM.APPL 5843/2013rstavl

7. Application stands disposed of in view of the order passed in the writ petition. G.S.SISTANI,J SANG jgRA SEHGAL, J A OCTOBER 29, 2015 pst