Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
S L Maurya vs Union Of India on 28 January, 2025
CAT,Lucknow Bench TA No. 332/00001/2018 in W.P. No. 5782/2000 Sundar Lal Maurya & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW
TA. No.332/00001/2018
In
W.P. No. 5782 of 2000
Dated, this 28th day of January, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member-Judicial
Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative
1. Sunder Lal Maurya son of Sri Ram Naresh Maurya, resident of
Village -Rampur Jamalpur, Post-Poorey Vadey Singh, District-Rai
Bareilly.
2. Ram Chander Singh son of Sri Rameshwar Sing, resident of village
& Post-Poorey Vadey Singh, District-Rai Bareilly.
.....Applicants
By Advocate: Shri Sundar Lal Maurya applicant in person
VERSUS
1. Director Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran Akademi, Fursatganj,
Airfield, District, Rai Bareilly.
2. Chief Administrative Officer, Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran
Akademi, Fursatganj, District-Rai Bareilly.
.....Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Yogesh Chandra Bhatt
ORDER (ORAL)
Per Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to promotion, the applicants have sought the following reliefs:
"a) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to promote the petitioners to the posts of Drivers, and thereafter to the posts of Drivers Grade-"B" and to also pay them all the consequential benefits w.e.f. the date such benefits were granted to other similarly placed persons working on the posts of Auto-Helpers, like the petitioners, in the Akademy.Page 1 of 4
CAT,Lucknow Bench TA No. 332/00001/2018 in W.P. No. 5782/2000 Sundar Lal Maurya & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
b) To issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court thinks fit in the circumstances of the case.
c) To award the costs of the petition to the petitioners."
2. The facts of the case are that the applicants were appointed to the post of Auto Helper vide order dated 31.05.1991. They were promoted to the post of Tractor Driver vide order dated 02.09.1994 while some other persons were promoted to the post of Driver. Subsequently, these persons were further promoted to the post of Driver "B" Grade while the applicants were not. Aggrieved, the applicants have preferred this TA.
3. The applicants contend that some of their colleagues, namely, Ram Asrey, Satyendra Singh, Ram Lal, Satya Kumar, Mohammad Tahir Khan, C P Shukla and Raj Mohan Singh have been promoted to the post of Driver and then to Driver "B" Grade while the applicants, even though similarly situated, have not been promoted to the post of Driver and Driver "B" Grade, which is arbitrary and discriminatory. The applicants state that they made representations to the respondents, but to no avail.
4. The respondents, on the other hand, state that eight other Auto Helpers were senior to the applicants and they were promoted to the post of Driver. The applicants were promoted to the post of Tractor Driver on 02.09.1994 which carries the same pay scale as that of Driver. There being no vacancy in Driver Grade "B", the applicants could not be promoted to that post. If and when vacancy in Driver Grade "B" arises, their cases will be considered. The applicants have not been discriminated vis a vis other drivers.
5. We have heard both the parties.
Page 2 of 4 CAT,Lucknow Bench TA No. 332/00001/2018 in W.P. No. 5782/2000 Sundar Lal Maurya & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
6. A perusal of the seniority and other details of the applicants and their colleagues submitted by the respondents shows the following position:
S. No. Name Date of Date of Date of
Joining designation/ promotion as
promotion as Driver "B"/
Driver/ Fire Driver
Tractor Driver
1 Bajrangi Lal 01.09.1986 01.01.1990 01.11.1994
2 Prahlad Mourya 31.01.1987 31.01.1987 01.11.1994
3 Ram Harsh Yadav 31.01.1987 31.01.1987 01.11.1994
4 Ram Asre 01.09.1987 01.01.1991 01.11.1994
5 Satyendra Singh 01.03.1988 01.02.1991 01.11.1994
6 Ram Lal 01.03.1988 01.02.1991 01.11.1994
7 Satya Kumar 01.04.1988 01.02.1991 01.11.1994
8 Mohd Tahir Khan 01.01.1990 01.02.1991 01.08.1995
9 O P Shukla 01.01.1990 01.08.1991 01.08.1995
10 Raj Mohan Singh 05.10.1990 01.02.1991 01.08.1995
11 Badri Prasad 01.02.1991 01.09.1994 -
12 Ram Chandra Singh 10.06.1991 01.09.1994 -
13 Sunder Lal 10.06.1991 01.09.1994 -
What emerges from the above is that the applicants are the junior most persons placed at S. No. 12 and 13 of the seniority list. It is noted that Badri Prasad at S. No. 11 is senior to the applicants, but he has also not been promoted. We find no basis to the applicants' claim that they are similarly situated as other drivers given their position in inter se seniority. In the rejoinder affidavit, the applicants' only refrain is that they have been stagnating for long and have not been promoted by the respondents on the pretext of non-availability of vacancies; but the applicants have not rebutted the seniority list or brought forth any material to support their claim. Further, it is noted that the respondents have stated that they would consider their promotion when the vacancies arise.
Page 3 of 4 CAT,Lucknow Bench TA No. 332/00001/2018 in W.P. No. 5782/2000 Sundar Lal Maurya & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors. 7.1 In view of the facts and circumstances above, the applicants are not entitled to the relief prayed for. This TA is disposed of accordingly. 7.2 Pending MAs, if any, are also disposed of.
7.3 On the request of the applicant, the registry is directed to have the Hindi translation of this judgment and order prepared and supplied to the applicant, in terms of rule-3 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987.
7.4 The Parties shall bear their own costs.
(Pankaj Kumar) (Justice Anil Kumar Ojha)
Member (A) Member (J)
Vidya Ben Digitally signed by
Vidya Ben Waghela
Waghela 12:07:43 +05'30'
Date: 2025.01.29
vidya
Page 4 of 4