Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 20.08.2025
UOI & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Pratima N. Lakra (CGSC) along
Prakash (JSO)
Through: Ms. Jasvinder Kaur along
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. This petition has been filed, challenging the Order dated 02.07.2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as „Tribunal‟), in OA NO. 1548/2006, titled Vijay Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., disposing of the said OA with the following directions:
SHARAN CHAUDHARY no. 15(3)/2005-E-I-ES dated 17.11.2005 issued by Respondent number 2 and 3 respectively and we further direct the Respondents to hold a DPC by preparing year wise panels from 1996 onwards till such time as the superseding of the old RR, on the basis of the old RRs governing the applicants and by taking into account all the vacancies, which could have been expected on the basis of counting retirements etc. at all levels. The Applicants would be entitled to all the consequential benefits. The above exercise should be completed within four months of receipt of certified copy of this order. No costs.”
2. To give the brief background of the facts in which the present petition arises, the respondents were appointed as Technical Assistants in the Subordinate Statistical Cadre of the Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture in 1990 and 1991. They were appointed as Section Officer (Statistics) (Technical) / Research Investigator Grade I (Statistics) on ad hoc basis on 13.05.1999. They were sought to be reverted from the said post vide an order dated 02.03.2005, which came to be challenged by them before the learned Tribunal.
3. It was the case of the respondents that they were promoted on ad hoc basis because the occupants of those posts, namely, Shri Sadhu Ram, Smt. S. K. Sharma, D. K. Joshi and R. S. Pouply, had been promoted on ad hoc basis to Grade IV of the Indian Statistical Service (ISS).
4. In the year 2002, the Recruitment Rules for the post, including Subordinate Statistical Service (SSS), were notified vide Notification GSR no.98(E) and 99(E) dated 12.02.2002, replacing the existing SHARAN CHAUDHARY recruitment rules for the post including that of SSS. A ban was, therefore, imposed by Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation to regularize any ad-hoc promote, by OM dated 26.03.2002. As further extension of ad-hoc promotions were not approved by the competent authority, the respondents were reverted to the regular post vide order dated 02.03.2005.
5. The learned Tribunal, in its Impugned Order, has held that there is no doubt that the respondents were eligible for the promotion to the post of Research Investigator Grade-I (Statistics) / Section Officer (Technical) at the time they were promoted on ad-hoc basis in the year 1999; they were not promoted on regular basis only because the vacancies were created by ad-hoc promotion of the above named persons, including Shri Sadhu Ram, to Grade IV of ISS and it was apprehended that they could be reverted. However, there were vacancies since 1997 against which these ad-hoc promoted officer could have been promoted. The learned Tribunal, placing reliance on its Order dated 29.11.2003 passed in OA No. 2137/2002, titled G. Lalitha v. Union of India, held that once regular vacancies were available, the respondents should not be reverted till the time the person who has lien on the post returns. The learned Tribunal, therefore, passed the above quoted direction.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that there were other officers who were seniors to the respondents at the post of Technical Assistants. She further submits that in the year 2002, the Recruitment Rules were amended and, therefore, the case of promotion to the respondents has SHARAN CHAUDHARY to be considered only in terms of the amended rules. She submits that thereafter, there was a ban by the Government for making ad-hoc promotions, and because of which, the respondents were reverted from the promotional post to the post they had been appointed on regular basis.
7. She submits that as far as the Order passed in G. Lalitha (supra) is concerned, realizing the mistake made in granting regular promotion to G. Lalitha, by an order dated 06.09.2018, the same was sought to be reviewed, and finally by an Order dated 10.09.2018, he has been reverted back to the post he was holding on regular basis. Though the said Order has been challenged before the learned Tribunal, the challenge is still pending adjudication.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the issue raised in the present petition is no longer res integra and has been decided by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam vide its Judgment dated 31.10.2019 passed in OP (CAT) No. 1124/2011 (Z), tilted Union of India & Ors. v. Tomy Mathew & Ors.. She submits that the High Court rejected the submissions of the petitioners that it is the prerogative of the petitioners to make appointment to the available post, and in the special facts where the respondents therein had been appointed on ad-hoc basis, just like the respondents herein, the Court directed the petitioners to consider the case of the respondents therein in accordance with the pre-amended rules. She submits that as the respondents had also approached the learned Tribunal immediately on the cause of action arising, the exception carved out by the High Court of Kerala in paragraph 12 of SHARAN CHAUDHARY the said Judgment would not be applicable to the respondents.
9. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
10. As noted hereinabove, the respondents had been promoted on ad-hoc basis to the post of Research Investigator Grade I (Statistics)/ Section Officer (Technical) on 13.05.1999. The recruitment rules were amended only on 12.02.2002. It is the case of the respondents that there were vacancies available to the above post against which the respondents could have been adjusted on regular basis. Considering similar submissions, the High Court of Kerala, in Tomy Mathew (supra), held as under:
SHARAN CHAUDHARY document:
Hence, the only submission of the petitioners was that even when there were promotions on ad hoc basis made to the post of Assistant Superintendents during 1998 and 1999, those persons were eligible for promotion according to existing Recruitment Rules. The contention against regularization that if it is carried out at this juncture, it will disturb the whole structure of the SS Services, establishes that there were sufficient vacancies. We cannot countenance such a contention, since the eligible officers who are entitled to be considered to vacancies, which were available and who were so considered, but promoted only on an ad hoc basis cannot be deprived of their right for regularization merely on the administrative version of the disturbance it would create in the structure of SS Service. This has to be definitely worked out by the Department and the persons adjusted to suitable vacancies.
11. In the above circumstances, we find that the respondents 1 to 3 were eligible to be SHARAN CHAUDHARY promoted to the available vacancies of Assistant Superintendents even as per the admission of the petitioners herein on the dates on which they were promoted on an ad hoc basis as revealed from Annexures A-2 and A-3. Then their promotions are entitled to be regularized from that date. When their promotions are regularized as on that date, definitely the ACP granted to them on 10.03.2000 and 01.11.1999 would have to be withdrawn. We direct the regularization as on the date of ad hoc promotion also on account of they having been continued in the higher post of Assistant Superintendents till the creation of SS Services. As we noticed, the ACP benefit given to them would have to be re-called since they were promoted prior to the grant of ACP and in that circumstance they would not be entitled to higher grade under the ACP scheme. But, that would not necessarily prejudice the respondents 1 to 3 because on creation of SS Service they would have to be absorbed and continued in the post of Statistical Investigators Grade-II and would have to be adjusted in the scale of pay of Rs. 6500-10500. If there is any recovery necessitated on the basis of the pay fixation in the regular post of Assistant Superintendents as on the dates of Annexure A-2 & A-3 as also as Statistical Investigators Grade-II as per Ext.P19, it would be ensured that their pay drawn is protected, by granting them personal or special pay in the scales in which they were to be continued. However, on creation of SS Services, the Government will consider their suitability to be placed in the higher cadre of Statistical Investigators Grade-II as found from Annexure A-19 in the scale of pay of Rs.6500-10500.
12. We are told that the Service Organization and one other person, have got themselves impleaded in the Original Petition in the year 2012. The learned Counsel appearing also wanted to advance arguments SHARAN CHAUDHARY on the claim of the other persons similarly situated. We decline such ·claim, since they had not approached the Tribunal with an O.A at the proper time. They, as respondents in an O.P filed against the order of the Tribunal, cannot claim any relief. The O.A. before the Tribunal was by three individual officers, asserting their claim and it was not one filed in a representative capacity. The Original Petition is filed by the official respondents before the Tribunal and the mere impleadment of the additional respondents 4 and 5 would not confer any right on them to canvass their claims, neither in a representative capacity by the Association (additional respondent No. 4) or the individual officer (additional respondent No.5). The benefits granted by the Tribunal and affirmed by us will be confined to the respondents 1 to 3 herein and it cannot percolate to persons who did not attempt to challenge their denial of regularization in a post to which they were promoted on ad hoc basis; even if they be similarly situated, since law prohibits any such benefits to be conceded to fence sitters and not at all when they failed to challenge it. The Original Petition is disposed of, making modifications to the Tribunal's order as indicated herein above. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs.”
11. From the reading of the above, it would be apparent that the High Court agreed that the submissions of the learned ASG appearing therein, that it is prerogative of the department to make promotions and they cannot be compelled to make promotions only because vacancies are available. At the same time, in the peculiar facts of the case where the respondents therein, just like the respondents in the present petition, had been appointed on ad-hoc basis having been found eligible for the higher post by the DPC, held that their cases be SHARAN CHAUDHARY considered against the vacancies that were available prior to amendment of the rules. The High Court, however, refused to grant such relief to a person who had impleaded himself in the OA only in the year 2012, that is after much delay.
12. In the present case, the respondents have approached the learned Tribunal at the first instance itself and had, in fact, succeeded before the learned Tribunal. In our view, the respondents, therefore, cannot be treated differently from the respondents who were before the Kerala High Court.
13. Accordingly, we dispose of this petition by directing the petitioners to consider the case of the respondents by holding Review DPC for the vacancies that were available from the year 1999 to year 2002, that is, prior to the amendment in the recruitment rules. In case the respondents are found eligible and entitled for promotion, consequential orders in that regard shall be passed granting consequential benefits to the respondents. The entire exercise must be completed by the petitioners within a period of 12 months from today.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J MADHU JAIN, J AUGUST 20, 2025 ssc/VG/IK SHARAN CHAUDHARY