Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 29th November, 2024
HARKRISHAN KUMAR NARULA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.K. Dua, Advocate
Through: Mr. Digvijay Rai, Mr. Archit Mishra and Mr. Raghib Ali Khan, Advocates
Officer, for Respondent No.1/AAI.
Mr. Devesh Khanagwal, Ms. Nippun Sharma and Ms. Anjana Gosain, Advocates for Respondent
No.2/UOI.
JUDGEMENT
JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. This writ petition has been preferred on behalf the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for directions to the Respondent No.1/Airport Authority of India (‘AAI’) to upgrade/promote the Petitioner from the post of Additional General Manager (Cartography) [‘AGM’] (Level E[7]) to the post of General Manager (Cartography) [‘GM’] (Level E[8]) on seniority basis as per Airports Authority of India (General Conditions of Service and Remuneration of Employees) Regulations, 2003 (‘Regulations, 2003’) with all consequential benefits.
2. Facts to the extent necessary and as averred in the writ petition are that Petitioner joined National Airports Authority as Assistant Director (Maps and Charts) in Senior Group A level through direct recruitment on 21.07.1993 and was promoted as Deputy General Manager (Cartography) [‘DGM’] on 28.06.1999.
3. As per the averments in writ petition, the Competent Authority approved the upgradation of the post of AGM (Cartography) to the post of GM (Cartography) on 23.10.2002. Petitioner’s predecessor Sh. B.K. Srivastava was promoted as GM (Cartography) on 31.12.2002 from the post of AGM, whereafter Regulations 2003 were notified in the Gazette on 23.05.2003. Petitioner was placed in the scale of Rs.18,500-450-23,900 w.e.f 28.06.2004 and designated as AGM (Cartography) on 28.06.2004. Petitioner avers that as per Regulations, 2003, AGMs were promoted directly as GMs and consequently, several officers were promoted as GMs in 2004 and 2005. Some officers were in fact promoted from DGM (E-6 level) directly as GM (E-8 level) in 2005 without working in E-7 level.
4. It is stated that Sh. B.K. Srivastava, GM (Cartography) retired on 31.07.2006 and Petitioner was directed to take over the charge of the said post on the afternoon of 31.07.2006. Petitioner, thereafter, made representation dated 11.08.2006 through proper channel to consider him favourably for the post of GM (Cartography) on regular basis, as he was officiating on the said post. Instead, Petitioner was appointed as Joint General Manager (‘JGM’) in the scale of Rs.18,500-450-23,900 as communicated vide letter dated 20.10.2006, which according to the Petitioner was E[7] level post similar to the post of AGM and therefore, this was merely a placement/redesignation and not a promotion. Petitioner claims that he ought to have been considered for promotion as GM (Cartography) as per Regulations, 2003.
5. Petitioner made representation dated 26.10.2006 against the order dated 20.10.2006 placing him as JGM and seeking promotion to the post of GM (Cartography). In response, Petitioner received a reply dated 25.06.2007 stating that post of AGM was a non-functional post and JGM was a functional post and therefore, appointment of the Petitioner was of promotion and Petitioner was advised to join as JGM w.e.f. 26.10.2005 so that he could complete eligibility period on that post for promotion as GM (Cartography).
6. Petitioner again represented on 02.07.2007 and requested for consideration for the post of GM (Cartography), as according to him, AGM was a substantive post and officers were promoted as GMs from AGMs since 2004. He also pointed out that he had completed 2 years as AGM at E- 7 level w.e.f. 28.06.2004. AAI, however, continued with its earlier stand. Apparently revised Regulations were notified in 2009 in respect of Executives for promotion to the post of GM (E-8), whereby any JGM (E-7) with a minimum of one year regular service in the grade and with a combined regular service of 05 years as DGM (E-6) was eligible. Petitioner was again advised on 05.02.2010 to join the post of JGM. An inter office note was issued on the said date stating that after Petitioner gives his report of joining he will be treated as JGM (Cartography) w.e.f. 01.07.2005. Petitioner accepted the post and joined on 08.02.2010, after which he represented on 27.04.2012 inter alia stating that he was designated as JGM w.e.f. 2005 and should be considered for promotion as GM (Cartography) as the post was lying vacant since 01.08.2006.
7. Petitioner avers that on 21.11.2013, Mr. Vinod Kumar, who was much junior to him, was promoted as JGM w.e.f 01.07.2012 and thereafter as GM on 25.11.2013, whereas the Petitioner, despite his experience of 15 years as AGM/JGM, was not considered for the post of GM (Cartography). Series of representations did not yield a positive result, save and except, a favourable recommendation made by Executive Director (ATM) in the note dated 07.12.2015, wherein he stated that post of GM (Cartography) was lying vacant since 31.07.2006 and Petitioner was eligible for promotion based on his seniority and merit. Petitioner thereafter filed a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 11606/2018, which was disposed of on 26.10.2018 with a direction to AAI to decide Petitioner’s representation dated 19.02.2018 within three weeks taking into consideration recommendation dated 07.12.2015. By order dated 03.12.2018, representation was rejected on the ground that post of GM (Cartography) was upgraded in 2006 by apportioning one post from ATM Directorate and since number of GM level posts in ATM Directorate were limited, apportioning a post to Cartography was not possible. This led to filing of the present petition.
8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Petitioner was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of GM (Cartography) in 2006 on retirement of Sh. B.K. Srivastava on 31.07.2006. At that stage, the sanctioned strength of GM (Cartography) was 01, while the actual strength was zero as can be seen from seniority lists published on 01.01.2018, 31.12.2009 and 01.01.2007 by AAI and therefore, it was not open to AAI to take this as a ground to deny promotion to the Petitioner in 2018. Lack of vacancy of GM (Cartography) is a stand which is belied even from the counter affidavit filed before this Court, wherein AAI has taken a position that Petitioner’s case was considered for promotion during the years 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 but it was observed that PAR gradings of the Petitioner, after taking charge of JGM (Cartography) in 2010 were not sufficient to promote him since they were either not available or were below the required benchmark which is ‘Very Good’ for 4 out of 5 PARs in the immediate preceding year of consideration.
9. It is further argued that even assuming Regulations, 2003 only deals with classification of posts and applicable regulation is Airports Authority of India (Recruitment and Promotion) Regulations, 2005 (‘Regulations, 2005’), the eligibility condition for promotion as GM (Cartography) is 02 years regular service in the grade of JGM and a combined minimum service of 05 years as JGM/DGM. The post is to be filled 100% by promotion on recommendation of a Departmental Promotion Committee and prescribed benchmark is ‘Very Good’. Petitioner was promoted as DGM (Cartography) on 28.06.1999 and even assuming for the sake of argument post of JGM was a functional post and the appointment of the Petitioner was a promotion and not redesignation, Petitioner fulfils the eligibility criteria for promotion as GM (Cartography) on completion of two years from 01.07.2005, since AAI had on its own vide order dated 05.02.2010 reckoned the appointment of the Petitioner as JGM (Cartography) from 01.07.2005 and vacancy in the post of GM (Cartography) had arisen on 01.08.2006 on retirement of Sh. B.K. Srivastava on 31.07.2006.
10. It is urged that the Executive Director (ATM) had made a favourable recommendation in his note on 07.12.2015 stating that Petitioner was a highly qualified, efficient and competent officer and was working as AGM (Cartography) in the feeder cadre since 2004 besides officiating efficiently as GM (Cartography) on superannuation of GM (Cartography) in 2006. Cartography is a specialized discipline and Petitioner was the only experienced, qualified and eligible officer in the feeder cadre. It was also mentioned that injustice was done to the Petitioner by stagnating him and then merely redesignating the nomenclature from AGM (Cartography) to JGM (Cartography) since 01.07.2005 in the same scale while other officers had been granted even 02 promotions during this long period. This Court while disposing of the earlier writ petition had directed AAI to decide the representation keeping in view this noting but none of the factors brought forth by Executive Director (ATM) were looked into while deciding the representation and rejecting the same illegally.
11. It is further argued that AAI has been taking shifting stands from time to time only to deny the benefit of promotion to the Petitioner. In the impugned order, it is stated that Petitioner cannot be considered for promotion since post of GM (Cartography) was upgraded during 2006 by apportioning 01 post from ATM Directorate but at present number of GM level posts in ATM Directorate is limited and therefore, apportioning a post to Cartography is not possible, however, in the counter affidavit, it is stated that Petitioner’s case was considered for promotion for 04 years between 2014 to 2017 but he was not recommended due to PAR criteria. It is strenuously urged that AAI has made every effort to deny promotion to the Petitioner, who was stagnating for a long period and therefore, direction be issued to consider his case for promotion from the date the vacancy has arisen with consequential benefits from the date of promotion and in this context, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in P.N. Premachandran v. State of Kerala and Others, (2004) 1 SCC 245, for the latter proposition.
12. Mr. Digvijay Rai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of AAI, on the other hand, submits that Petitioner was rightly not considered for promotion to the post of GM (Cartography) as he was ineligible when the vacancy arose on 01.08.2006. It is argued that the applicable regulations are Regulations, 2005 and Regulation 21(ii) thereof provides that for promotion to the post of GM, 02 years regular service as JGM with combined minimum service of 05 years as JGM/DGM is required for eligibility. This is further subject to being recommended by the Selection Committee based on the interview and achieving the benchmark of ‘Very Good’ in the relevant PARs. Petitioner joined the post of JGM only on 08.02.2010 and had not completed 2 years regular service as JGM when the vacancy arose on 01.08.2006.
13. Learned counsel denies that the note of Executive Director (ATM) dated 07.12.2015 was not considered while deciding the representation of the Petitioner pursuant to directions of this Court. It is urged that Petitioner was not considered as there was no vacancy at that stage in the post of GM (Cartography). It is explained that post of GM (Cartography) was upgraded in 2006 by apportioning 01 post from ATM Directorate but over a period of time number of GM level posts in ATM Directorate became limited and it was not possible to apportion 01 post to Cartography and hence, the request of the Petitioner cannot be acceded to despite recommendation dated 07.12.2015.
14. Mr. Digvijay also takes an objection to the maintainability of this petition on ground of delay and laches and submits that the cause of action, if any, on Petitioner’s own showing, had arisen in 2006 when the vacancy had arisen while this writ petition was filed in 2019. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Banda Development Authority, Banda v. Moti Lal Agarwal and Others, (2011) 5 SCC 394 with special emphasis on paragraphs 16 and 17 which are as follows:
15. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in K.B. Rajoria v. Union of India, 1999 SCC OnLine Del 689, to argue that even though AAI had issued an order reckoning the appointment of the Petitioner as JGM from 01.07.2005 but this was only notional and notional promotion cannot be treated at par with regular service of 02 years required in the post of JGM for being eligible for the post of GM (Cartography).
16. Heard learned counsels for the parties and examined their submissions.
17. The moot question arising before this Court is whether Petitioner is eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of GM (Cartography). Indisputably, Petitioner was appointed to the post of DGM (Cartography) on 26.08.1999. On 28.07.2004 Petitioner was placed in the scale of Rs.18,500- 450-23,900 w.e.f. 28.06.2004 and designated as AGM (Cartography). Petitioner’s predecessor Sh. B.K. Srivastava was promoted vide order dated 31.12.2002 from AGM (Cartography) to GM (Cartography) and retired on superannuation on 31.07.2006. Petitioner was directed to take over the charge upon his retirement, which he did and successfully carried out the assigned tasks of that post.
18. On 20.10.2006 AAI issued an order stating that Petitioner was promoted as JGM (Cartography) on regular basis on recommendation of a duly constituted DPC and he will continue to perform the duties he was performing in addition to the duties of JGM (Cartography). The pay scale remained the same i.e. Rs.18,500-450-23,900. Petitioner contests that this was not a promotion as there was no change in the pay scale and in service jurisprudence, the expression ‘Promotion’ means and connotes movement to a higher post with a higher pay and I agree. The concept of ‘Promotion’ has been a subject matter of several decisions and there is unanimity in judicial opinion that promotional post is a higher post with a higher pay and in this context, I may only refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. R. Santhakumari Velusamy and Others, (2011) 9 SCC 510, relevant paragraphs of which are as follows:
Selection grades are, therefore, created in the interest of greater efficiency.”
18. In Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab [(1994) 5 SCC 392: 1994 SCC (L&S) 1113: (1994) 27 ATC 886] this Court defined “promotion” thus: (SCC p. 396, para 9)
19. In S.S. Ranade [(1995) 4 SCC 462: 1995 SCC (L&S) 1033: (1995) 30 ATC 559] the scope and meaning of the word “promotion” was considered. The issue in that case was whether a Commandant (Selection Grade) held a higher rank than a Commandant and consequently entitled to be superannuated at a later age of 58 years instead of 55 years. This Court, following the decision in Lalit Mohan Deb [(1973) 3 SCC 862: 1973 SCC (L&S) 272], held as follows: (S.S. Ranade case [(1995) 4 SCC 462: 1995 SCC (L&S) 1033: (1995) 30 ATC 559], SCC pp. 467-69, paras 9 & 14-15)
On facts, this Court found that the respondent therein required a promotion which resulted in occupation of a post which was higher in rank than the post earlier occupied, to get the relief of longer service. This Court held that though his promotion from Commandant to Commandant (Selection Grade), resulted in a promotion to a higher pay scale, that was not sufficient to grant relief to the respondent therein as his promotion to selection grade did not involve advancement to a higher post.
20. In Fateh Chand Soni [(1996) 1 SCC 562: 1996 SCC (L&S) 340] this Court following Ranade [(1995) 4 SCC 462: 1995 SCC (L&S) 1033: (1995) 30 ATC 559] defined “promotion” thus: (Fateh Chand Soni case [(1996) 1 SCC 562: 1996 SCC (L&S) 340], SCC p. 567, para 8)
21. The distinction between upgradation and promotion was spelt out by a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in N.G. Prabhu v. Kerala High Court [1973 Lab IC 1399 (Ker)], thus: (Lab IC p. 1406, para 16)
category. They would automatically get a higher scale of pay. That is because though their posts continue in the same category a higher scale of pay is fixed for those posts. It is appropriate then to say that the seniors have been nominated to the higher grade which has been so created by upgradation. This phenomenon does not differ from the case where all the posts are upgraded and, it appears to us that those who get the higher grade cannot be said to have been ‘promoted’ because here again there is no question of appointment from one post to another. They continue to hold the same post, but because of seniority in the same post they are given a higher scale of pay. When a person is nominated to the higher scale of pay from time to time based on seniority it may perhaps loosely be termed as a promotion.” x x x x x x x x x
29. On a careful analysis of the principles relating to promotion and upgradation in the light of the aforesaid decisions, the following principles emerge:
(i) Promotion is an advancement in rank or grade or both and is a step towards advancement to a higher position, grade or honour and dignity. Though in the traditional sense promotion refers to advancement to a higher post, in its wider sense, promotion may include an advancement to a higher pay scale without moving to a different post. But the mere fact that both—that is, advancement to a higher position and advancement to a higher pay scale—are described by the common term “promotion”, does not mean that they are the same. The two types of promotion are distinct and have different connotations and consequences.
(ii) Upgradation merely confers a financial benefit by raising the scale of pay of the post without there being movement from a lower position to a higher position. In an upgradation, the candidate continues to hold the same post without any change in the duties and responsibilities but merely gets a higher pay scale.
(iii) Therefore, when there is an advancement to a higher pay scale without change of post, it may be referred to as upgradation or promotion to a higher pay scale. But there is still difference between the two. Where the advancement to a higher pay scale without change of post is available to everyone who satisfies the eligibility conditions, without undergoing any process of selection, it will be upgradation. But if the advancement to a higher pay scale without change of post is as a result of some process which has elements of selection, then it will be a promotion to a higher pay scale. In other words, upgradation by application of a process of selection, as contrasted from an upgradation simpliciter can be said to be a promotion in its wider sense, that is, advancement to a higher pay scale.
(iv) Generally, upgradation relates to and applies to all positions in a category, who have completed a minimum period of service. Upgradation can also be restricted to a percentage of posts in a cadre with reference to seniority (instead of being made available to all employees in the category) and it will still be an upgradation simpliciter. But if there is a process of selection or consideration of comparative merit or suitability for granting the upgradation or benefit of advancement to a higher pay scale, it will be a promotion. A mere screening to eliminate such employees whose service records may contain adverse entries or who might have suffered punishment, may not amount to a process of selection leading to promotion and the elimination may still be a part of the process of upgradation simpliciter. Where the upgradation involves a process of selection criteria similar to those applicable to promotion, then it will, in effect, be a promotion, though termed as upgradation.
(v) Where the process is an upgradation simpliciter, there is no need to apply the rules of reservation. But where the upgradation involves a selection process and is therefore a promotion, the rules of reservation will apply.
(vi) Where there is a restructuring of some cadres resulting in creation of additional posts and filling of those vacancies by those who satisfy the conditions of eligibility which includes a minimum period of service, will attract the rules of reservation. On the other hand, where the restructuring of posts does not involve creation of additional posts but merely results in some of the existing posts being placed in a higher grade to provide relief against stagnation, the said process does not invite reservation.”
19. From the principles elucidated by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, it can hardly be argued that placement of the Petitioner in the pay scale of Rs.18,500-450-23,900 in the grade of JGM (Cartography) would be termed as promotion as the pay scale of this post and that of AGM remained the same and at the highest this lateral movement can be termed as redesignation or placement. Therefore, AAI cannot reckon the eligibility period for promotion to the post of GM (Cartography) from the date Petitioner was appointed as JGM (Cartography) in October, 2006 or when he physically joined on the post on 08.02.2010 and wipe off his earlier service in the post of AGM in the same pay scale. Argument of AAI that AGM was a non-functional post is wholly flawed in light of Regulation 2003, which reflect that the said post was an encadred post and more importantly, several officers as per orders placed on record, were promoted from AGM to GM, including Sh. B.K. Srivastava.
20. Even assuming for the sake of argument that JGM was a promotion post, even then Petitioner becomes eligible on completion of 02 years from 01.07.2005 in terms of order dated 05.02.2010, issued by AAI, wherein it was clearly stated that on Petitioner’s joining the post of JGM, he would be treated as JGM (Cartography) w.e.f. 01.07.2005. Petitioner joined on 08.02.2010 i.e. 03 days after the order was issued on 05.02.2010 and has to be considered as having been appointed as JGM on 01.07.2005, as per this order. Vacancy for the post of GM (Cartography) had arisen on 01.08.2006 upon retirement of Sh. B.K. Srivastava and therefore, Petitioner fulfils the criteria laid down in Regulations, 2005 on 01.07.2007, counting 02 years from 01.07.2005 in the post of JGM as he also meets the second condition of combined service of 05 years as JGM/DGM having been appointed as DGM on 28.06.1999.
21. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has rightly relied on the interoffice note dated 07.12.2015, wherein the Executive Director (ATM) had recommended Petitioner’s case as follows: “The upgraded post of GM (Cartography) is lying vacant since the retirement of Sh. B. K. Srivastava on 31st July, 2006. Keeping in view the importance of the post due ICAO requirements the action to fill up this post was requested to Dte. of personnel in advance in 2006. Despite the fact that a number of reminders were also sent for filling up this post so far this post has not been filled up. Dr. H. K. Narula, Jt GM (Cartography) is a highly qualified, efficient and competent officer the then Addl. GM (Cartography) working in the feeder cadre since 2004 on this post. On superannuation of the GM (Cartography) in 2006 Dr. Narula was given the charge of (Cartography) and he officiated very efficiently and effectively as Officiating GM (Cartography). (Cartography) is a specialised discipline and Dr. Narula is the only experienced, qualified and eligible officer in line from the feeder cadre with specialized Cartography qualifications. Injustice has been done to him by promoting and stagnating him in the same category from Addl. GM to Jt. GM since 1st July 2005 and not upgrading and promoting him to the level of GM (Cartography). Some of the other officers have been granted even two promotions during this long period. It is a lone case in Cartography discipline and his up gradation and promotion will not have effect on others in Cartography. To meet the ends of justice I strongly recommend case of Dr. H. K. Narula for up gradation and promotion on seniority basis to the post of GM (Cartography) from date of vacancy on 31st July 2006.”
22. This note evidences that Petitioner has been stagnating for a long period, during which other officers in AAI at similar positions were given two promotions. The note also brings out the injustice meted out to the Petitioner despite his being a meritorious and efficient officer in the specialised discipline of Cartography. Significantly, it was also brought out that this was a lone case in the Cartography discipline and therefore, Petitioner’s upgradation/promotion will not impact any other officer’s seniority, and in this background, it was recommended that Petitioner be granted promotion on seniority basis to the post of GM (Cartography) from the date of vacancy i.e. 01.08.2006.
23. Petitioner is also right in contending that the ground taken for rejecting the representation of the Petitioner that there is no vacancy in the post of Cartography is completely false and not supported by the record. First and foremost, I may note that this stand is taken for the first time in
2018. Secondly, there is no material on record to show that the post of GM (Cartography) was ever reverted to the ATM Directorate after retirement of Sh. B.K. Srivastava. On a pointed query to Mr. Digvijay Rai to produce the record wherein a decision was taken to revert the post to ATM Directorate, assuming at an earlier stage, it was apportioned from the said Directorate, it is candidly stated that no such record is available. Therefore, the stand of AAI that the post is to apportioned to the Cartography department is wholly incorrect as the same never reverted to the ATM Directorate. Additionally, learned counsel for the Petitioner draws Court’s attention to a document appended as Annexure P-2 to the writ petition, which is a seniority list of GM (Cartography) as on 01.01.2018 and reflects the sanctioned strength as 01 and actual strength as 0 (zero), which proves the incorrect stand taken by AAI in the rejection order that there was no vacancy in the post of GM (Cartography). This position is also belied from the counter affidavit on behalf of AAI on 19.08.2019, wherein a categorical position is taken that Petitioner’s case for promotion was taken up during the years 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 but he was not recommended for reasons related to his PAR grading. It is not understood how Petitioner’s case was considered till 2017 if the post of GM (Cartography) was reverted to ATM Directorate and no vacancy existed after superannuation of Sh. B.K. Srivastava.
24. Seen holistically, there is no doubt that Petitioner deserves to be considered for the post of GM (Cartography) against the vacancy that had arisen due to retirement of Sh. B.K. Srivastava. It bears repetition to state that if AAI treats the appointment of the Petitioner to the post of JGM (Cartography) as a promotion, even then he completes 02 years of regular service in the said post on 01.07.2007 and has 05 years combined service as JGM/DGM on the said date. If the Petitioner is right that his appointment as JGM was a mere placement and his service as AGM from 28.06.2004 is to be reckoned as a service in the grade of JGM, even on that threshold, Petitioner becomes eligible albeit from 01.08.2006, when the vacancy arose. This is not to overlook the fact that Petitioner has placed on record plethora of documents which indicate that officers have been promoted directly from the post of AGM to the post of GM in the years 2004-2005. Be that as it may, this Court agrees with the Petitioner that his appointment as JGM was merely a placement in a post with the same pay scale and cannot be treated as promotion in service jurisprudence. Therefore, the 02 years regular service required for the post of JGM will reckon from 28.06.2004 and Petitioner will be eligible for consideration from 01.08.2006.
25. The preliminary objection of delay and laches raised by AAI deserves to be rejected. As the chronology of dates and events indicates, vacancy in the post of GM (Cartography) arose on 01.08.2006 when Sh. B.K. Srivastava retired and immediately on 11.08.2006, Petitioner represented to consider him for promotion to the said post as he was already officiating. Thereafter, extensive correspondence was exchanged between the Petitioner and AAI on this issue and in the meantime, Petitioner was appointed as JGM (Cartography) on 20.10.2006. This led to another trail of correspondence pertaining to joining on the said post due to rival stands of the parties on whether the post was a promotion post or a mere redesignation. This issue was resolved when AAI issued an order on 05.02.2010 giving effect to Petitioner’s appointment as JGM from 01.07.2005 and Petitioner joined on 08.02.2010. Petitioner once again made representations for promotion and the matter was under consideration throughout, which is evident from the note dated 07.12.2015. At this stage, Respondent No. 2 also got involved in the matter and several letters were written to AAI till 09.03.2018. On 04.10.2018, Petitioner filed W.P. (C) No. 11606/2018, which was disposed of on 26.10.2018 directing AAI to decide the representation dated 19.02.2018, taking into consideration the inter-office note dated 07.12.2015. Representation was rejected on 03.12.2018 and soon thereafter, this writ petition was filed in May 2019. In my considered view, the writ petition cannot be dismissed on delay and laches and the objection is overruled and therefore, the judgment in Banda Development Authority (supra) cannot aid AAI. The judgment in K.B. Rajoria (supra) also cannot help Mr. Rai in facts of this case, where AAI had itself issued an order on 05.02.2010 stating that on the Petitioner giving his report of joining, he will be treated as JGM (Cartography) w.e.f. 01.07.2005 and therefore, this service of the Petitioner cannot be wiped away for the purpose of eligibility for promotion to the post of GM (Cartography).
26. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed directing AAI to constitute a DPC in accordance with applicable Regulations and consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of General Manager (Cartography) [Level E-8] within a period of eight weeks from today. Needless to state that the consideration will be against the lone vacancy which had arisen on 01.08.2006 upon retirement of Sh. B.K. Srivastava. If the Petitioner is recommended by the DPC, all consequential benefits shall be granted on promotion.
27. Writ petition along with pending application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.