Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
S M Matloob vs Iccr on 28 October, 2025
1
Item No. 23(C-V)
O.A. No.110/2023
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.110/2023
Order reserved on : 08.09.2025
Order pronounced on : 28.10.2025
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)
S.M. Matloob,
S/o S.M. Quiyum,
Age 67 years,
R/o I-102, Batla House,
Jamia Nagar, New Delhi-110025.
...Applicant
(In person )
Versus
The Director General,
Indian Council for Cultural Relations,
Azad Bhawan, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi-110002.
...Respondent
(By Advocate : Shri M.K. Bhardwaj)
2
Item No. 23(C-V)
O.A. No.110/2023
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J) :-
1.1 The present OA has been filed by the applicant seeking promotion to the rank of Programme Director.
1.2 The factual matrix of the case is that the present applicant was appointed as Arabic Typist in the Indian Council for Cultural Relations (ICCR) on 17.08.1979.
He was promoted to the post of UDC on 02.01.1991 and to the rank of Assistant on 29.10.2002. He retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2015. A disciplinary case was initiated against the applicant and on 19.08.2005, it was culminated in the penalty of compulsory retirement from service by the Competent Authority. Being aggrieved, he filed OA No. 4473/2013 before this Tribunal. This Tribunal vide order dated 09.05.2014, allowed the said OA quashing the aforesaid order dated 19.08.2005. The Tribunal ordered that the applicant is not entitled to arrears of pay applying the principle of „no work no pay‟. Being aggrieved, he filed Writ Petition No. 5226/2014 before the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court of Delhi, which was 3 Item No. 23(C-V) O.A. No.110/2023 disposed of vide order dated 21.05.2014, allowing 50% of back wages. The applicant filed Civil Appeal No. 920/2017 before the Hon‟ble Apex Court. On 24.01.2017, the Hon‟ble Apex Court allowed 100% back wages to the applicant. The Order of the Hon‟ble Apex Court has been complied with by the respondents. Subsequently, the applicant filed another OA No. 1832/2018, seeking consequential reliefs including promotion allowances and other benefits with 18% interest. This Tribunal vide order dated 08.12.2020 disposed of the said OA with a direction to the applicant to file comprehensive representation before the respondents. The applicant filed his representation on 08.12.2020 followed by reminders dated 11.01.2021 and 12.04.2021, for fixing his seniority and based on these representations, the respondents vide order dated 05.03.2021 granted financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme to the applicant because he has not got the promotion after the rank of Assistant. Since the respondents have not fixed the seniority of the applicant and given promotion to the next higher rank 4 Item No. 23(C-V) O.A. No.110/2023 at par his juniors, feeling aggrieved, he filed the present OA seeking the following reliefs:-
"a) Kindly pass a reasoned and speaking order setting aside the impugned order dt 05.03.2021 and directing the Respondent to grant the applicant the pay scale of Rs.
15600-39100+6600 (Programme Director grade pay) instead of provisional payment of Rs. 9300-34800+4200 (grade pay) or as per the entitlement along with arrears of interest from due date till realization, and to dispose of the same in a time bound manner.
b) Kindly pass order to provide seniority as per the entitlement or grant at least and pay the arrears of pay with 18% interest to the applicant from the date the same become due till the date of actual payments.
(c) Kindly direct the Respondent to produce the relevant records in respect of Service Rules and relevant Establishment Orders which is followed by the Respondent for perusal of this Hon'ble Tribunal.
(d) Kindly direct the respondent to clarify and determine the inter se seniority of the Applicant in view of the principles enunciated.
(e) Kindly pass any other proper and further relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in favor of the applicant and against the respondent." 1.3 The applicant has given some facts through MA No. 3547/2024 and in paragraph 3 of the said MA, he has stated that two of his juniors namely, Shri Sardar 5 Item No. 23(C-V) O.A. No.110/2023 Singh Rawat and Shri Syed Tajul Hasan have been promoted to the rank of Programme Officer w.e.f. 03.08.2011. As they were junior to him, he is entitled for promotion as Programme Officer w.e.f. 03.08.2011 and Programme Director w.e.f. 28.10.2016. His basic contention is that as his juniors have been promoted to the next higher rank and the effect of penalty was nullified upto the level of Hon‟ble Apex Court, he should have been given promotion from the date his juniors got promotion to various ranks. 2.1 Pursuant to notice, the respondents have filed their counter affidavit opposing the OA. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the OA is barred by limitation. He submitted that the applicant is seeking promotion to the rank of Programm Director w.e.f 28.10.2016 when he was not even in service. He is seeking promotion to the rank of Assistant Program Officer w.e.f. 01.02.2003, and Programme Officer w.e.f 03.08.2011 and then Programme Director w.e.f. 28.10.2016. The applicant had not agitated when his alleged juniors, namely, Shri Sardar Singh Rawat and Shri Syed Tajul Hasan were promoted to the rank of APO w.e.f 01.02.2003. 6 Item No. 23(C-V) O.A. No.110/2023 2.2 In support of his averment, he cited the judgment of Hon‟ble Apex Court in D.C.S. Negi Vs. UOI and Ors. decided on 07.03.2011. He referred to paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 which are reproduced as below:-
"12. Before parting with the case, we consider it necessary to note that for quite some time, the Administrative Tribunals established under the Act have been entertaining and deciding the applications filed under Section 19 of the Act in complete disregard of the mandate of Section 21, which reads as under:
"21. Limitation (1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application-
(a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made;
(b) in a case where an appeal or representation such as is mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 20 has been made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where-
(a) the grievance in respect of which an application is made had arisen by reason of any order made at any time during the period of three years immediately preceding 7 Item No. 23(C-V) O.A. No.110/2023 the date on which the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal becomes exercisable under this Act in respect of the matter to which such order relates; and
(b) no proceedings for the redressal of such grievance had been commenced before the said date before any High Court, the application shall be entertained by the Tribunal if it is made within the period referred to in clause (a), or, as the case may be, clause (b) of sub-section (1) or within a period of six months from the said date, whichever period expires later.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) an application may be admitted after the period of one year specified in clause (a) or clause
(b) of sub-section (1) or, as the case may be, the period of Six months specified in sub-
section (2), if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period."
13. A reading of the plain language of the above reproduced section makes it clear that the Tribunal cannot admit an application unless the same is made within the time specified in clauses (a) and (b) of Section 21(1) or Section 21(2) or an order is passed in terms of sub-section (3) for entertaining the application after the prescribed period. Since Section 21(1) is couched in negative form, it is the duty of the Tribunal to first consider whether the application is within limitation. An application can be admitted only if the same is found to have been made within the prescribed period or sufficient cause is shown for not doing so within the prescribed period and an order is passed under Section 21(3).
14. In the present case, the Tribunal entertained and decided the application without even adverting to the issue of 8 Item No. 23(C-V) O.A. No.110/2023 limitation. The learned counsel for the petitioner tried to explain this omission by pointing out that in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, no such objection was raised but we have not felt impressed. In our view, the Tribunal cannot abdicate its duty to act in accordance with the statute under which it is established and the fact that an objection of limitation is not raised by the respondent/non-applicant is not at all relevant."
2.3 In addition, learned counsel for respondents submitted that the applicant was promoted as UDC on 02.01.1991 and the Sardar Singh Rawat was promoted as UDC on 07.03.1989 and Shri Syed Tajul Hasan was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant on 07.03.1989, i.e. prior to the applicant being promoted on the said posts. Hence, the alleged juniors have got their promotions to the subsequent ranks of APO and Programme Officer whereas the applicant was not granted the same and when they were promoted to the post of Programme Director in the year 2016, the applicant was not in the service. He further submitted that as per the Recruitment Rules, the regular service of 5 years in the rank of Programme Officer is required to get promotion to the rank of Programme Director. The applicant was never promoted to the rank of Programme Officer and before his retirement he never worked as Programme Officer, 9 Item No. 23(C-V) O.A. No.110/2023 hence, he is not entitled for promotion as Programme Director.
2.4 In support of his averments, learned counsel for respondents referred to para 4 of the counter reply, wherein the judgment of Hon‟ble Apex Court in UOI Vs. Chaman Rana, (2018) 5 SCC 798, has been quoted. For better appreciation, para 4 of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow :-
"As far back as in P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N.4, considering a claim for promotion belated by 14 years, this Court had observed that a period of six months or at the utmost a year would be reasonable time to approach a court against denial of promotion and that it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion not to entertain such claims by persons who tried to unsettle the settled matters, which only clog the work of the court impeding it in considering genuine grievances within time in the following words: (SCC p. 154, para 2).
"2. ...A person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his head should approach the court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and 10 Item No. 23(C-V) O.A. No.110/2023 who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters. The petitioner's petition should, therefore, have been dismissed in limine. Entertaining such petitions is a waste of time of the court. It clogs the work of the court and impedes the work of the court in considering legitimate grievances as also its normal work. We consider that the High Court was right in dismissing the appellant's petition as well as the appeal.""
2.5 On merits, learned counsel for respondents submitted that the applicant is seeking relief to be promoted to the rank of Programme Director and there is a requirement of regular service of five years in the rank of Programme Officer for being promoted to the rank of Programme Director. As the applicant has never worked as Programme Officer, he is not entitled for promotion as Programme Director. 3.1 In rejoinder, the applicant, who is present in person submitted that he is praying not only for wages but also all other service benefits which were not granted by the Tribunal vide order dated 09.05.2014. Though, the Hon‟ble High Court only granted 50% back wages, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court enhanced it to 100% back wages. However, he has not been granted any relief as well as the other service benefits 11 Item No. 23(C-V) O.A. No.110/2023 and that is why he has come to this Tribunal in the instant OA.
4. We have considered the rival submissions canvassed on behalf of the parties and perused the record.
5. The basic issue is whether the applicant is entitled to promotion and consequential pay. Applicant is claiming promotion to the rank of Assistant Program Officer w.e.f. 01.02.2003 and Programme Officer w.e.f. 03.08.2011 and then Programme Director w.e.f. 28.10.2016. He was promoted to the rank of UDC on 02.01.1991 and to the rank of Assistant on 29.10.2002. It is an undisputed fact that juniors of applicant namely Sh. Sardar Singh Rawat and Sh. Syed Tajul Hasan were promoted to the rank of APO w.e.f. 01.02.2003. In order to ascertain the validity of such claim, it becomes necessary for us to address the following issues:
a) Whether the applicant can be granted his claim despite the fact that his juniors were promoted way back on 01.02.2003, superseding him and whether his claim is barred by laches/delay?12
Item No. 23(C-V) O.A. No.110/2023
b) Whether seniority alone is to be considered the criteria of promotion when the Recruitment Rules prescribe eligibility for promotion such as certain length of service in a particular cadre? As to First Issue 6.1 A disciplinary case was initiated against the applicant and on 19.08.2005, he was compulsorily retired from services by the competent authority. Earlier, the applicant had litigated for back wages and other consequential reliefs including promotion allowances and other benefits with 18% interest. The Principal Bench of the Tribunal vide its order in OA No. 4473/2013 directed that the Order dated 19.08.2005 is quashed, however applying the principle of „no work no pay‟ declined to grant any back wages. Aggrieved, the applicant moved the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court vide WP(C) 5526/2014, which at the outset limited the scope of such Writ Petition to controversy of back wages, and observed that "we are not examining the entire merits of the case as we confine our decision only to a short controversy, namely as to whether the applicant is entitled to full back wages ..." and then was pleased to 13 Item No. 23(C-V) O.A. No.110/2023 grant 50% back wages. Aggrieved, applicant moved Hon‟ble Apex Court vide SLP (C) No. 26404/2015, wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court granted full back wages to the applicant.
6.2 This is apparent from the record that the juniors of applicant were promoted over his head way back in 01.02.2003 i.e. even before his transfer to Lucknow on 21.05.2004, or his compulsory retirement on 19.08.2005. Now, when the applicant is claiming seniority from such back date, it becomes necessary to ascertain whether there are laches/inordinate delays. The principle behind refusal of claim/relief, is that the rights, which have accrued to others by reason of delay, in filing the case should not be allowed to be disturbed unless there is a reasonable explanation for delay. Hon‟ble Apex Court in Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi, AIR 1970 SC 898 explaining the principle of laches in respect of Writ Petitions held that "A party claiming fundamental rights must move the Court before others' rights come out into existence. The action of the Courts cannot harm innocent parties if their rights emerge by reason of delay on the part of person moving the court." A Constitution Bench of this Court, in Ramchandra 14 Item No. 23(C-V) O.A. No.110/2023 Shanker Deodhar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. AIR B 1974 SC 259, considered the effect of delay in challenging the promotion and seniority list and held as under :
"any claim for seniority at a belated stage should be rejected inasmuch as it seeks to disturb the vested rights of other persons regarding seniority, rank and promotion which have accrued to them during the intervening period. A party should approach the Court just after accrual of the cause of complaint."
(emphasis supplied) 6.3 In P.S. Sadasivaswamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu AIR B 1975 SC 2271, Hon‟ble Apex Court considered the case where the petition was filed after lapse of 14 years challenging the promotion. However, it was held that aggrieved person must approach the Court expeditiously for relief and it is not permissible to put forward stale claim. The Court observed as under:-
"A person aggrieved by an order promoting a junior over his head should approach the Court at least within 6 months or at the most a year of such promotion."15
Item No. 23(C-V) O.A. No.110/2023 6.4 The Court further observed that it was not that there was any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor was it that there could never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after certain length of time. It would be a sound and wise exercise of jurisdiction for the-courts to refuse to exercise their extra ordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who standby and allow things to happen and then approach to the Court to put forward stale claim and try to unsettle settled matters.
6.5 From the above analysis, we find that the claim of applicant is barred by laches/delay as the course of action was arisen on 01.02.2003 i.e. before his transfer to Lucknow and initiation of disciplinary proceeding including imposing of penalty upon him. He filed his initial case only when he was ordered for compulsorily retired on 19.08.2005. 6.6 However, the applicant did not approach the court when his juniors were promoted over his head. The ratio of the judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Sadasivaswamy (supra) is very clear on this point 16 Item No. 23(C-V) O.A. No.110/2023 that the applicant must approach the court within 6 months or at most a year but the applicant did not do so. He filed his initial case only when he was compulsorily retired on 19.08.2005. As to Second Issue 7.1 It is no more res integra that seniority and eligibility for promotion are two different concepts altogether. When the legislature or executive fixes an eligibility criteria for promotion say length of service in a particular cadre, a person cannot be considered eligible for such promotion unless he possesses such an essential qualification. Promotions cannot be granted merely on the basis of seniority when the executive or legislature has fixed an eligibility criteria. 7.2 In R. Prabha Devi & Ors. vs. Government of India & Ors. Al R 1988 SC 902, the Hon‟ble Apex Court held as under -
"15. The rule-making authority is competent to frame rules B laying down eligibility condition for promotion to a higher post. When such an eligibility condition has been laid down by service rules, it cannot be said that a direct recruit who is senior to the promotees is not required to comply with the eligibility condition and he is entitled to be considered for promotion to the higher post 17 Item No. 23(C-V) O.A. No.110/2023 merely on. the basis of his seniority ...... When qualifications for appointment to a post in a particular cadre are prescribed, the same have to be satisfied before a person can be considered for, ... appointment. Seniority in a particular cadre does not entitle a public servant for promotion to a higher post unless he fulfils the eligibility condition prescribed by the relevant rules. A person must be eligible for promotion having regard to ... the qualifications prescribed for the post before he can be considered for promotion. Seniority will be relevant only amongst persons eligible. Seniority cannot be substituted for eligibility nor it can override it in the matter of promotion to the next higher post.
When certain length of service in a particular cadre can validly be prescribed and is so prescribed, unless a person possesses that qualification, he cannot be considered eligible for appointment. There is no law which lays down that a senior in service would automatically be eligible for promotion. Seniority by itself does not outweigh experience"
7.3 The promotion to the post of Programme Director as per Recruitment rules can be given only after completion of five years of regular service in the rank of Programme Officer. It is clear from the record that the applicant neither worked nor was promoted to the rank of Programme officer. When the executive by way of Recruitment Rules has prescribed certain eligibility 18 Item No. 23(C-V) O.A. No.110/2023 criteria for the promotion to the post of Programme Director and when the applicant does not meet the eligibility criteria, there arises no question of his promotion.
8. In view of the above, we have arrived on a conclusion that the present OA is devoid of merits and as a result thereof, the same is dismissed.
9. All pending MAs, if any, are also stand disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Rajveer Singh Verma) (Dr. Chhabilendra Roul)
Member (J) Member (A)
„rk‟