Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rakesh Kumar vs M/O Defence on 18 March, 2026
1 O.A No. 1052/2016
Item 31 (C-3)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 1052/2016 with M.A No. 1042/2016
Reserved on : 09.03.2026
Pronounced on : 18.03.2026
Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
1. Rakesh Kumar
S/o Late Sh. O. P. Bhardwaj
R/o 142, Shakti Vihar, Pitam Pura,
Delhi-110'034
(Aged about 51 years)
2. Sant Kumar Prasad
S/o Late Sh. Prem Nath Prasad
R/o C-118, Taj Enclave, Qutub Vihar,
Part-II, Goyla Dairy, Near Hanuman Chowk, Delhi
(Aged about 53 years)
3. Dharmvir Singh
S/o Sh. Hari Ram
R/o H. No. 679/22, Parbha Nagar, Mandi Old,
Rohtak Road, Sonipat, Haryana-131-001
(Aged about 54 years)
4. Asha Sachdeva
W/o Sh. Pardeep Sachdeva
R/o H. No. 1182, Block B,
Back Portion Green Field Čolony, Faridabad, Haryana
(Aged about 54 years)
5. Savitri Nayal
W/o Sh. Y. S. Nayal
R/o H. No. 41, Sector-II, Type-III,
Sadiq Nagar, New Delhi-110'049
(Aged about 51 years)
6. Sujata Oberoi
W/o Sh. Rajesh Oberoi
R/o A-201, Ishwar Apartment, Plot No-4, Sector-12,
Dwarka, New Delhi-78
(Aged about 54 years)
MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.20 16:07:44+05'30'
2 O.A No. 1052/2016
Item 31 (C-3)
7. Vinita Sablok
W/o Sh. Harish Sablok
R/o GH-1/276, Archana Appt.,
Near Peera Ghari Chowk, Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi-63
(Aged about 51 years)
8. Tejinder Kaur
W/o Sh. Parveen Khurana
R/o Type III/6, North West Moti Bagh,
New Delhi-110'021
(Aged about 51 years)
9. Kamal Kishore
S/o Late Sh. R. P. Gupta
R/o. H. No. WZ104, Naraina,
New Delhi-110028
(Aged about 54 years)
10. Sushma Gupta
W/o Sh. Anil Gupta
R/o Pocket-12, 66-A, Dilshad Garden,
Delhi-95
(Aged about 52 years)
11. Sanjay
S/o Late Sh. C. L. Verma
R/o A-5/T1, Block-A, Dilshad Garden,
Delhi-110 095
(Aged about 48 years)
12. Sarla Devi
W/o Sh. Nandlal
R/o 6-D, Pkt.-A, MIG Flats, GTB Enclave,
Nand Nagri, Delhi-110'093
(Aged about 49 years)
13. Harish Chand
S/o Sh. Phool Singh
R/o 1118, A Block, Shakti Nagar,
Meerut Road, Hapur, U.P.-245 101
(Aged about 49 years)
14. Jaspal
S/o Late Sh. Bhagat Ram
R/o Q No 264, Sector-3, R. K. Puram,
New Delhi-110 022
(Aged about 54 years)
MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.20 16:07:44+05'30'
3 O.A No. 1052/2016
Item 31 (C-3)
15. Kishor Nandanwar
S/o Late Sh. Tulshiramji Nandanwar
R/o Flat No. 6049/6, Sector-D, Pocket-6,
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110'070
(Aged about 51 years)
16. N. K. Adlakha
S/o Late Sh. Gian Chand Adlakha
R/o 18/24/12, Old Govind Pura,
P.O Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110'051
(Aged about 52 years)
17. Madhu Deepani
W/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Deepani
R/o RU-312, Pitam Pura, Delhi-110:034
(Aged about 51 years)
18. K. Krishna Murti
S/o Sh. Jagdish Singh
R/o Q. No. 881, Sector-09, R. K. Puram,
New Delhi-110'022
(Aged about 51 years)
19. D N Sharma
W/o Sh. Satya Dev Sharma
R/o 1/1572, Man Sarovar Park,
Shahdara, Delhi-110032
(Aged about 58 years)
20. Madhu
Sh. Yashwant Kumar
R/o F-69, Naurojini Nagar, New Delhi-29
(Aged about 48 years)
(all Data Processing Assistants, Grade A) .....Applicants
(By Advocate : Mr. Ajesh Luthra)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Defence, South Block,
E-Block, Hutments, New Delhi-110011
2. The Joint Secretary (Trg.) & CAO
Ministry of Defence,
C-II, Hutments, Dalhousie Road,
New Delhi.
MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.20 16:07:44+05'30'
4 O.A No. 1052/2016
Item 31 (C-3)
3. R. K. Kapil
S/o not known
R/o not known
4. Ram Karan Meena
S/o not known
R/o not known
5. S. K. Maurya
S/o not known
R/o not known
6. Pavan Kumar
S/o not known
R/o not known
7. Madhu
D/o not known
R/o not known
8. Ravi Kumar
S/o not known
R/o not known
9. Anil Kumar
S/o not known
R/o not known
10. Krishnaveni S
S/o not known
R/o not known
11. Harsh Goel
S/o not known
R/o not known
12. S. S. Pandharinath
S/o not known
R/o not known
13. Narendra Kumar
S/o not known
R/o not known
14. Mahadik Bala Srinivasa Rao
S/o not known
R/o not known
MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.20 16:07:44+05'30'
5 O.A No. 1052/2016
Item 31 (C-3)
15. Divya Jyothi
D/o not known
R/o not known
16. SVC Yedida
S/o not known
R/o not known
17. Vijay Kumar Dasari
S/o not known
R/o not known
18. Prasanth M
S/o not known
R/o not known
19. V Gayathri
D/o not known
R/o not known
20. Bootha Pandian N
S/o not known
R/o not known
(respondents No 3 to 20 to be served through respondent No.2
.....Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. Vijendra Singh, Ms. Sakshi Saugat for Mr. M. K.
Bhardwaj)
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A) :
M.A No. 1042/2016 :
The instant M.A for joining together of parties in a single OA is allowed as all the applicants have a common cause of action and are seeking similar reliefs.
O.A. No. 1052/2016 :
The instant OA has been filed by Mr. Rakesh Kumar and 19 other similarly placed applicants under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs :-
MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.20 16:07:44+05'30' 6 O.A No. 1052/2016 Item 31 (C-3) "a. Quash and set arise the impugned orders/actions of the respondents No 1 and 2 placed at Annexure A/1 and A/2 whereby the juniors of the applicants have been granted promotion to the posts of Programmer in complete exclusion of the senior applicants and b. Hold and declare that the seniors are requested to be considered for promotion prior to the juniors c. Direct the respondents to consider and promote the applicants to the post of Programmer upon completion of exercise of amendment of Recruitment Rules for which time bound directions be issued for finalisation of the ongoing process of amendment.
d. Till such time, the exercise ordained in para 8(c) above in complete, the applicants be considered and promoted on ad-hoc basis.
e. award all consequential benefits f. award costs of the proceedings and g. pass any other order/direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in favour of the applicant and against the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The factual matrix of the case and the grounds as per the counsel of the applicants is that the applicants belong to the Electronic Data Processing (EDP) cadre under the Ministry of Defence and were initially appointed to computer related posts during the years 1987-1990. In 1986 Sheshagri Committee was set up to recommend details for rationalization of the pay scales of Data Processing Posts which gave its recommendations on 11.09.1989. The cadre structure of the EDP staff had earlier came before this Tribunal in OA No. 351/1991, where the issue of restructuring of the EDP cadre and promotional avenues was considered. Pursuant to the said case, the Government reviewed the cadre structure on the basis of the recommendations of the Sheshagri Committee. As a result, the posts of Data Entry Operator were divided into different grades and a promotional MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.20 16:07:44+05'30' 7 O.A No. 1052/2016 Item 31 (C-3) hierarchy was created consisting of DEO Grade-A, DEO Grade-B, DEO Grade-C, followed by Data Processing Assistant (DPA) Grade-A and higher posts. The applicants further contend that some of the private respondents who were promoted had earlier approached the Tribunal in OA No. 580/2004 however, their claim for promotion had not been accepted on the ground that the recruitment rules did not permit such promotion. Despite this earlier stand and despite the recruitment rules being under process of amendment after merger of posts, the respondents allegedly promoted those junior officials which action is arbitrary and discriminatory. According to the counsel, after the implementation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission certain posts were merged and re-designated with effect from 01.01.2006, due to which the applicants came to hold the post of DPA (A). Thereafter, a seniority list of DPA (A) officials was issued on 27.01.2015 which became final after no objections from anyone within the stipulated time. In the said list the applicants were placed at various senior positions. However, in February 2016 the respondents issued an impugned panel dated 10.02.2016 and a promotion order dated 15.02.2016 promoting several juniors to the applicants in the seniority list to the promotional post. He added that these promotions were made by ignoring the seniority of the applicants and by selecting juniors, which is contrary to the established rules and principles governing promotions. Being aggrieved by the impugned panel and promotion order of the juniors, the applicants have approached the Tribunal seeking its intervention.
3. The counsel of the applicants argued assiduously on the following grounds :-
MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.20 16:07:44+05'30' 8 O.A No. 1052/2016 Item 31 (C-3) "A. The impugned orders/actions of the respondents are absolutely illegal, arbitrary and violative of all callous of law.
B. The OA of the Private Respondents No 4 to 20 has already been dismissed with the observations that Applicants have not been able to make out a case for any of the reliefs claimed by them in the OA and that the OA being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and even after the said dismissal, that Govt. Respondents has granted the Promotion on the post of Programmer after forming the impugned panel for the said purposes.
C. The private Respondents had not even got any relief in Appeal from the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the same was disposed of by passing a general order that if any vacancy on the post of Programmer exists, the Respondents shall certainly take steps to hold the DPC to consider the case of all eligible employees (including the present Applicants also) for the promotional post within a period of four months, but even after the said instructions the official Respondents have not considered the present Applicants.
D. Official Respondents have given the promotions to the Private Respondents after ignoring/considering the seniority and eligibility of the present Applicants, even though this Hon'ble Court was pleased to dismiss the claim of promotion of the Private Respondents in OA No. 1267 of 2013.
E. The present Applicants are much senior and eligible for the promotion but without considering the eligibility and seniority they have prepared, approved and operated the impugned panel for promotion to the Private Respondents and even they have ignored the findings of this Hon'ble Court that Private Respondents are not eligible for promotion of the post of DPA Grade-B and Programmer. The impugned orders having been passed in the teeth of judicial verdict, cannot sustain.
F. As per Recruitment Rules 2001 for promotion on the post of DPA Grade-B that 03 years service DPA Grade-A in the revised pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 is required but no age and educational qualification is required for the existing incumbents in the grade of Data Processing Assistant Grade-A on the date of the revised Rules are exempted from possessing the educational qualification prescribed for direct recruits.
G. As the statutory Recruitment Rules were not notified/amend under Article 309 for making promotion to the post of Programmer to make the post of DPA-A as feeder post, therefore the Govt. Respondents were required to follow the existing Recruitment Rules of DPA-Grade-B for promotion till the amendment of new Recruitment Rules by doing so, all the eligible employees would get promotion to the available vacancies of DPA-B which got merged with Programmer. Even otherwise, the draft amended rules could be utilised for effecting promotion, yet the same has not been done illegally.
MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.20 16:07:44+05'30' 9 O.A No. 1052/2016 Item 31 (C-3) H. Time to time even before implementing the Judgement dated 10.07.2014 the Respondents have issued the seniority list and in all the present Applicants are much senior to the Private Respondents. That in the month of Jan. 2015 (but before passing the Judgment in OA No. 365/2007 of the present Applicants) the Respondents had issued the seniority list wherein also the present Applicants are much senior to the Private Respondents.
I. The Respondents have acted in violation of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India as they have discriminated the Applicants without any justification and by acting contrary to rules.
J. The Respondents are acting arbitrarily and discriminatory without any basis. The respondents are a State and are obliged to act fairly, judicially and free of discrimination.
K. For any other reason/ground which may be available to the applicants at the time of oral submissions."
4. Per contra, the counsel of the respondents vehemently opposed the arguments of the counsel of the applicants and argued that the applicants have sought certain service related benefits concerning Electronic Data Processing (EDP) cadre posts and the grant of higher pay scales. However, as per the respondents the claims made by the applicants are not justified and have no legal basis. It is submitted that the applicants were initially appointed to the posts of Computer/Junior Computer in the pay scale of ₹950-1500 during the period between 1987 and 1990, while some of the applicants were appointed earlier in the years 1974 and 1985. Their service conditions and promotional avenues have always been governed by the applicable government rules and departmental instructions issued from time to time. The counsel further submitted that the instructions issued by the Ministry of Finance regarding restructuring of pay scales of Electronic Data Processing posts were implemented by the department in accordance with the prescribed guidelines and benefits were extended only to those officials who fulfilled the eligibility conditions laid down by the government. It is also submitted that the Recruitment Rules governing the posts were duly notified vide SRO No.45 dated 19.02.2001 under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.20 16:07:44+05'30' 10 O.A No. 1052/2016 Item 31 (C-3) the promotions and other service benefits were granted strictly in accordance with the said rules and the applicable government instructions. He further stated that the department has acted strictly in accordance with the rules and policies of the Government and there has been no discrimination or arbitrariness in the matter. The allegations made by the applicants are incorrect, denied and not supported by any material on record. He added that the OA is also not maintainable under Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 as the applicants have not fulfilled the statutory requirements for approaching the Tribunal. Moreover, the applicants are not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the OA and the same deserves to be dismissed.
5. To buttress his case, the counsel of the respondents relied upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 675/2016- R. S. Rathore & Ors. vs. Ministry of Defence dated 11.02.2020 in case of similarly situated applicants where the OA was dismissed and the decision of the Tribunal was upheld by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No. 11145/2022. He also relied on the ratio extracted from the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2954-55 and 2956-57- Y. V. Rangaiah & Others vs. J. Sreenivasa Rao and Others dated 24.03.1983.
6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submission; examined the documents on record and perused the relevant decisions and judgments of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble Apex Court. We have noted that vide the ratio given in Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment in Y. V. Rangaiah & Others vs. J. Sreenivasa Rao & others (supra) the vacancies are governed by the Recruitment Rules (RRs) in force as on the date of occurrence of vacancies MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.20 16:07:44+05'30' 11 O.A No. 1052/2016 Item 31 (C-3) and the vacancies which occurred prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the amended rules. The draft Recruitment Rules (RRs) have no legal validity. Till the time new Recruitment Rules are issued, existing RRs are valid and the respondents had to act in accordance with the RRs of 2001. However, the judgment in Y. V. Rangaiah's case (supra) has already been overruled by decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Raj Kumar - Civil Appeal No. 9746 of 2011 dated 20.05.2022 wherein the Court expressly held that 'the statement in Rangaiah that vacancies occurring prior to amendment must be filled under old rules does not reflect the correct proposition of law and is hereby overruled.' The Court clarified that 'Government servants only have a right to be considered for promotion according to the rules in force when consideration takes place, not when the vacancy arose.' Although Rangiah's case has been overruled however, both the decisions quoted above are not squarely applicable to the instant case as both of them do not talk about draft Recruitment Rules.
We have observed that the respondents have acted in accordance with the existing RRs only and had issued promotion orders in respect of all eligible employees only in consonance with the provisions of existing RRs. The RRs had been notified vide SRO No. 45 dated 19.02.2001 under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Only the eligible candidates have been promoted and thus there has been no violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. In the light of this there has been no discrimination, arbitrariness or illegality on the part of the respondents. We would also like MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.20 16:07:44+05'30' 12 O.A No. 1052/2016 Item 31 (C-3) to follow the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in OA 675/2016 - R. S. Rathore & Ors. vs. Ministry of Defence (supra) in case of similarly situated applicants where the OA was dismissed and the decision of the Tribunal was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
7. In the light of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the balance of convenience in the instant OA lies with the respondents. The instant OA is devoid of merit; deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. MAs if any are also disposed of in similar manner. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Mbt/
MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.20 16:07:44+05'30'