Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010130852021
JAGBIR SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Adv.
Through: Mr. Rajendra Sahu, SPC with Ms. Hema Sahu, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR
JUDGMENT
31.07.2026 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. The petitioner was appointed as Gramin Dak Sevak[1] in the Department of Posts in 1990. He was put off duty on 17 February
1994. A charge sheet, proposing disciplinary proceedings against him was issued after a lapse of about nine years on 30 July 2003. This was followed by a disciplinary inquiry resulting in his removal from service on 19 March 2008. A departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected on 26 March 2010.
2. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the Central “GDS”, hereinafter Administrative Tribunal[2] by way of OA 1214/2011. By judgment dated 2 April 2013, the Tribunal directed the respondents to regularise the period for which the petitioner was put off duty as spent on duty for all purposes, excluding arrears. The concluding paragraph of the judgment of the Tribunal read thus:
3. The respondents filed RA 22/2014 before the Tribunal seeking review of the judgment dated 2 April 2013. The review application was dismissed on 17 August 2015. The respondents thereafter challenged the said decision before this Court by means of WP(C) 2923/2016, which was also dismissed on 10 August 2016.
4. Despite this, there was no compliance with paragraph 12 of the judgment dated 2 April 2013 supra passed by the Tribunal in OA 1214/2011. This constrained the petitioner to file Contempt Petition 250/2017, seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents. At that stage, the petitioner was reinstated in service with effect from 11 August 2017. CP 250/2017 was therefore closed “the Tribunal”, hereinafter by order dated 18 September 2017.
5. Thereafter, a Departmental Promotion Committee[3] was convened on 11 June 2018. The petitioner’s case was considered for promotion as Multi-Tasking Staff[4] in the said DPC, and consequent on the recommendations of the DPC, the petitioner was promoted as MTS with effect from 28 September 2018.
6. The case of the petitioner, as ventilated before the Tribunal and before this Court, is that he was entitled to be promoted as MTS with effect from the date when his batch mates, i.e., those who joined as GDS along with him or thereafter, were promoted as MTS.
7. A representation addressed by the petitioner, seeking the said relief, was rejected by the respondents by order dated 21 October 2020, on the ground that the Tribunal had, while allowing OA 1214/2011 by judgment dated 2 April 2013, not granted any consequential relief.
8. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by way of OA 2088/2020, in which the presently impugned judgment has come to be rendered.
9. The Tribunal has dismissed the OA. The reasoning of the Tribunal, as contained in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the impugned judgment read as under: “DPC”, hereinafter “MTS” hereinafter
10. The petitioner has approached this Court by means of the present writ petition, aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 17 December 2020, whereby his OA has been dismissed.
11. It is clear that the Tribunal, as well as the respondents, were erroneous in their observation that no consequential benefits have been granted by the Tribunal in its judgment dated 2 April 2013 in OA 1214/2011. A bare reading of paragraph 12 of the said judgment makes it apparent that the Tribunal quashed the order of punishment of the petitioner as well as the order rejecting his appeal thereagainst “with all consequential benefits”.
12. The petitioner, therefore, was entitled to all consequential benefits, consequent on the quashing of his punishment order and the order passed in the appeal preferred thereagainst.
13. While issuing notice on 17 March 2021, a detailed order was passed by this Court noting all the aforesaid facts. After reciting the facts, this Court observed thus, in paragraphs 9 to 12 of its order:
14. To a query from the Court as to the instructions which he had with respect to the afore-extracted paragraph 12 of the order dated 17 March 2021 passed by this Court, Mr. Rajendra Sahu, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents submits that, in fact a DPC have been convened in 2013, after the passing of the judgment dated 2 April 2013 by the Tribunal in OA 1214/2011, in which the petitioner’s batch matches were considered for promotion as MTS but that the petitioner’s case was not considered as RA 22/2014 had been filed before the Tribunal, which was pending adjudication. He submits that, however, after the review application was disposed of and the petitioner was reinstated on 11 August 2017, his case was duly considered by the DPC which convened on 11 June 2018 and, consequent on the recommendations thereof, the petitioner was promoted as MTS on 28 September 2018.
15. We are of the view that consideration of the petitioners by the DPC which was held on 11 June 2018, and his promotion as MTS consequent on the recommendations of the said DPC, can provide no succour to the petitioner and are, in fact, of no particular relevance, insofar as the case of the petitioner in the present litigation is concerned. Once the Tribunal had allowed the petitioner’s OA on 2 April 2013 with all consequential reliefs, it was incumbent on the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion as MTS in the very next DPC which was convened along with his batch mates and juniors, if any.
16. That, however, admittedly did not take place.
17. The pendency of a review application could hardly be a ground for not complying with the order passed by the Tribunal.
18. In fact, it appears that the respondents may have unintentionally failed to comply with the order of the Tribunal under an impression that the judgment dated 2 April 2013 of the Tribunal in OA 1214/2011 did not grant consequential relief. In fact, as we have already noted, paragraph 12 of the judgement allowed the OA with all consequential reliefs.
19. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was in error in dismissing the petitioner’s OA.
20. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment dated 17 December 2020 passed by the Tribunal and allow the present writ petition in the following terms:
(i) The respondents are directed to convene a review DPC to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion as MTS. The review DPC would consider the case of the petitioner as it was due to be considered in the DPC which was convened in 2013 after the judgment dated 2 April 2013 of the Tribunal in OA 1214/2011.
(ii) In case the petitioner is found fit for promotion, he shall be promoted as MTS with effect from the date on which his batch mates and juniors who joined with him as GDS were promoted as MTS.
(iii) As the petitioner was not rendering any service with the respondents prior to 11 August 2017, we are not in a position to grant any back wages for the said period. However, we clarify that in case the petitioner is found fit by the review DPC, for promotion as MTS, he shall be entitled to the same pay scale as was granted to his batch mates who were promoted as MTS in the DPC which took place in 2013. The pay fixation would, however, be on notional basis with actual benefits being available to the petitioner with effect from 11 August 2017 when the petitioner was reinstated in service.
(iv) The benefit of the said pay scale would be available to the petitioner till the date of his superannuation and, thereafter, his retiral benefits would also be liable to be recomputed on that basis.
21. The OA as well as the present writ petition stand allowed in the aforesaid terms.
22. We direct compliance with the order passed by us within a period of four months from today.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
VINOD KUMAR, J. JULY 31, 2026