Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mahavir Singh vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi Through ... on 17 December, 2009
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench TA No.530/2009 New Delhi this the 17th day of December 2009. Honble Mr. Shanker Raju, Member (J) Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) Mahavir Singh, son of Shri Ram Singh, R/o 7/201, Model Town, Bahadrgarh, Haryana. -Applicant (By Advocate Shri Awadesh Kumar) -Versus- 1. Municipal Corporation of Delhi through its Commissioner, Town Hall, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. 2. Director of Primary Education, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Old Hindu College Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006. 3. Director (Personnel), Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Town Hall, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006. 4. Miss Harbans Ahuja Assistant Education Officer (Phy.) Primary Education Department MCD, Old Hindu College Building Kashmere Gate, New Delhi-6 -Respondents (By Advocate Shri Gaurang Kanth) O R D E R Honble Mr. Shanker Raju, Member (J):
Applicant, who retired in 2008 as School Inspector, seeks promotion as Assistant Education Officer (AEO) and also challenges promotion of one Ms. Harbans Ahuja (private respondent No.4) made in 1995.
2. As per the factual matrix applicant was working as a School Inspector (Physical) since 23.11.1979. Minor and major penalty proceedings were initiated against him, which undisputedly have been filed and he has been exonerated. On 15.7.1998 seniority of School Inspectors was issued where applicant stood at No.1. However, another person was appointed on 10.3.1999 as AEO (Physical) as a stop gap arrangement. However, the Suit No.370/1998 filed by the applicant was withdrawn with liberty to file the present CWP (TA).
3. Learned counsel of applicant states that non-promotion of applicant and non-consideration thereof as AEO (Physical) is vitiated by discrimination on sex alone by favouring private respondent over and above applicant, ignoring the seniority. According to applicant recruitment regulation provides reservation of 50% each for male and female, which has not been adhered to by the respondents.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel of respondents stated that as applicant was facing disciplinary proceedings he was not considered.
5. On careful consideration of the rival contentions of the parties, we are of the considered view that in the matter of promotion when one is facing disciplinary proceedings what is laid down in law is holding the promotion in abeyance for whatever methodology approved by the Rules but it cannot be that right of consideration for promotion, which is recognized in law as a Fundamental Right, is denied. As the disciplinary proceedings have ended and the applicant has superannuated, he has a right to be considered for promotion as AEO (Physical) under the Regulations, as promotion denied before retirement can be validly given to a government servant post-retirement in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Gopi Chand Vishnoi v. State of U.P., (2006) 9 SCC 694 retrospectively.
6. Resultantly, for the foregoing reasons, this TA stands disposed of with a direction to respondents to adopt a methodology to consider on notional basis promotion of applicant as AEO (Physical) from the date his juniors had been promoted and in such an event he shall be entitled to revision of his retiral dues accordingly with arrears, which shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
(Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda) (Shanker Raju)
Member (A) Member (J)
San.