Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Pradeep Kumar Agrawal vs M/O Communications on 14 July, 2025
1
Item No. 34 (C-3)
O.A. No. 1731/2017
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 1731/2017
This the 14th day of July, 2025
Hon'ble Mrs. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Pradeep Kumar Agrawal
S/o Late Sh. R. S. Agrawal
R/o C-274/4, Arjun Nagar,
New Delhi - 110029
Aged about 50 years
(Grade ' ')
(Scientist 'C')
... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Shukla, Mr. AN Singh,
Mr. Mahesh Gupta and Mr. Shubhash Sharma)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Communications and Information
Technology,
Department of Electronics and Information Technology,
National Informatics Centre,
A - Block, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003
2. Director General
National Informatics Centre,
Ministry of Communications and Information
Technology,
Department of Electronics and Information Technology,
A - Block, CGO Complex,
2
Item No. 34 (C-3)
O.A. No. 1731/2017
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003
3. Deputy Director General (Pers.)
National Informatics Centre,
Ministry of Communications and Information
Technology,
Department of Electronics and Information Technology,
A - Block, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. AK Singh)
3
Item No. 34 (C-3)
O.A. No. 1731/2017
O R D E R (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mrs. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (J)
1. The applicant is a Scientist 'C' with the respondents and seeks In-situ promotion under the Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS) 1998. In terms of the FCS upon completion of four years of service on 01.01.2009 the applicant was entitled to be considered for In-situ up- gradation. He was duly considered with respect to his eligibility on 01.01.2009. As the recommendations did not find favor to the applicant. Therefore, he was denied up- gradation with effect from the said date. Learned counsel for the applicant explains that it is twice in the year that the employees are considered for extension of FCS. In the present facts, it was only on 01.07.2010, that the applicant was considered for extension of In-situ promotion in the FCS. However, the recommendations were kept in a sealed cover. The DPC was convened on 03.07.2012 for extension of the benefit w.e.f. 01.07.2010, however, the recommendations have been kept in a sealed cover. With respect to his cause, the applicant had preferred various representations and the same were not considered by the 4 Item No. 34 (C-3) O.A. No. 1731/2017 respondents. He then requested the respondents to grant him ad-hoc promotion. However, his request has been denied by the respondents vide order dated 16.09.2015 (Page 70 of the counter reply).
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that at this stage he may not press the prayer for ad-hoc promotion. Aggrieved by the non-extension of the benefit of FCS the applicant has preferred the instant O.A. seeking the following relief(s):-
"(i) Hold and declare that the respondents have wrongly withheld the promotion of the applicant by illegally and unlawfully adopting seal cover procedure for the relevant dates viz. 1st day of January/July 2010.
(ii) Direct the respondents to open the seal cover and immediately act upon the recommendations contained therein w.e.f. the relevant date i.e. 01.01.2010 or in the alternate 01.07.2010.
(iii) Accord all consequential benefits including monetary benefits.
(iv) In the event prayers made above are not admissible to the applicant, the respondents be directed to consider the applicant's case for ad-hoc promotion in terms of DOPT OM mentioned herein above and accord all consequential benefits. (NOT PRESSED)
(v) Award costs of the proceedings.5
Item No. 34 (C-3) O.A. No. 1731/2017
(vi) Pass any order/relief/direction(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice in favour of the applicant."
3. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of the applicant makes the following submissions:-
i. The applicant was entitled to be considered for In-
situ promotion under the FCS with effect from 01.07.2010.
ii. The DPC with effect to the same was held on 03.07.2012. It is not in dispute that on the relevant date, that is, 01.07.2010 there were three RCs filed by the CBI, that were pending against the applicant. Nevertheless, the charge-sheet in each case was after the said date, the details of the RC and the dates of filing of Charge-Sheet are reproduced herein below:
RC Date of Charge-sheet
4/2006 06.05.2011
3/2007 10.08.2010
6/2008 16.07.2010
iii. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
FCS is an In-situ promotion and therefore, the 6 Item No. 34 (C-3) O.A. No. 1731/2017 name of the applicant has been arbitrarily and illegally placed in a sealed cover.
iv. The respondents have incorrectly applied the DOPT OM dated 14.09.1992 (Page 83) which is vacancy based, while the present facts involve a case where extension of In-situ promotion under the FCS has been sought. He submits that the applicant is entitled to be considered on 01.07.2010 itself. v. Draws attention to page 148 of the O.A. wherein the criteria for considering promotions under Flexible Complementing Scheme is been mentioned. The criteria adopted is evaluation of the ACRs followed by an interview against which the applicant is obliged to obtain 80% marks an above on completion of five years.
vi. The recommendations of the DPC held on 03.07.2012 be opened and in case the recommendations find favor to the applicant, he be extended the benefit of the FCS.
4. Mr. A.K.Singh learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the O.A. He submits, 7 Item No. 34 (C-3) O.A. No. 1731/2017
(i) By virtue of the Instant O.A., the applicant is seeking the benefit of FCS, which is, in fact, an actual promotion and the applicant would be promoted as Scientist 'D'. The applicant would be discharging higher duties. Therefore, stringent conditions for promotion would be applicable.
(ii) He does not dispute that on the date when the applicant became eligible i.e. 01.07.2010 the RCs were pending against the applicant, however, on the date of the DPC, that is, 03.07.2012 the competent court had already taken cognizance of the matter and in light of the DOPT OM dated 14.09.1992 the name of the applicant was kept in a sealed cover.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties in great detail.
6. The applicant is seeking the extension of the benefit of In-situ promotion under the FCS (Page 139). The criterion mentioned in the scheme to be eligible for extension of benefit is a. four years of service, b. consideration of ACRs c. 80% marks in the interview 8 Item No. 34 (C-3) O.A. No. 1731/2017
7. Para 1 of the FCS reads as under:-
" The undersigned is directed to say that in Chapter 51 of its report, the Fifth Central Pay Commission has made a number of recommendations for modifying the existing Flexible Complementing Scheme in operation in Scientific and Technological Departments for In-situ promotion of scientists/technical personnel, with a view to removing the shortcomings/inadequacies in the Scheme highlighted by the Commission. The recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission in this regard have been examined in consultation with the secretaries of the Department of Science and Technology and some other major scientific Departments and the following decisions have been taken:-
1.The recommendation of the Pay Commission that the modified Flexible Complementing Scheme proposed by it should be applicable in all the Departments, including the Departments of Space, Atomic Energy and DRDO without any special dispensation for any individual Department, has not been accepted. The existing scheme of merit based promotion system covering the Groups A, B & C personnel, as presently applicable in the Deptt. Of Atomic Energy, the Deptt. Of Space and the DRDO shall continue."
8.1 Evidently, the applicant has been considered by the DPC on 03.07.2012 which is belatedly. The cause of the applicant for extension of benefit under FCS arose on 01.07.2010 itself. The extension of benefit under FCS is not vacancy based. According 9 Item No. 34 (C-3) O.A. No. 1731/2017 to us, the respondents are obliged to consider the case of the applicant for extension of benefit of In-situ promotion on the date of eligibility itself 01.07.2010. 8.2 On 01.07.2010 since the competent criminal court had not taken cognizance there was nothing that may have served as an impediment for the extension of the benefit of FCS. None of the circumstances detailed in the DoPT OM dated 14.09.1992 existed on 01.07.2010.
8.3 The O.M. has been incorrectly made applicable in the case of the applicant as it is not a regular promotion but an In-situ promotion under the FCS. In the present facts the applicant is only seeking In-situ promotion under the FCS. 8.4 For better appreciation the relevant portion of the OM dated 14.09.1992 (Page 83) reads as under:-
"2. At the time of consideration of the cases of Government servants for promotion, details of Government servants in the consideration zone for promotion falling under the following categories should be specifically brought to the notice of the Departmental Promotion Committee:-
I) Government servants under suspension; II) Government servants in respect of whom a charge sheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending; and III) Government servants in respect of whom prosecution for a criminal charge is pending.10
Item No. 34 (C-3) O.A. No. 1731/2017 2.1 The Departmental Promotion Committee shall assess the suitability of the Government servants coming within the purview of the circumstances mentioned above along with other eligible candidates without taking into consideration the disciplinary case/criminal prosecution pending. The assessment of the DPC, including 'Unfit for Promotion', and the grading awarded by it will be kept in a sealed cover. The cover will be superscribed 'Findings regarding suitability for promotion to the grade/post of ...... . ..... in respect of Shri ...... ....... (name of the Government servant). Not to be opened till the termination of the disciplinary case/criminal prosecution against Shri .............' The proceedings of the DPC need only contain the note 'The findings are contained in the attached seated cover. The authority competent to fill the vacancy should be separately advised to fill the vacancy in the higher grade only in an officiating capacity when the findings of the DPC in respect of the suitability of a Government Servant for his promotion are kept in a sealed cover. 2.2 The same procedure outlined in para 2.1 above will be followed by the subsequent Departmental Promotion Committees convened till the disciplinary case/criminal prosecution against the Government servant concerned is concluded."
9. In view of the above, the O.A. is allowed with following directions:
(i) The respondents shall open the sealed cover within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.11
Item No. 34 (C-3) O.A. No. 1731/2017
(ii) In case the recommendations find favor to the applicant, he would be extended In-situ promotion under the FCS within a period of eight weeks thereafter.
(iii) The applicant would be entitled to all consequential benefits arising from this order, including arrears that would be released within eight weeks of extending promotion under FCS.
(Dr. Chhabilendra Roul) (Pratima K. Gupta)
Member (A) Member (J)
/dd/