Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Arvind Kumar Vijay vs C A T Jaipur And Ors on 14 May, 2013
Author: Mohammad Rafiq
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7714/2010 Arvind Kumar Vijay vs. Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors. Date of order : 14/05/2013. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE MRS. MEENA V GOMBER Shri Rajvir Sharma for the petitioner. Shri M.S.Raghav for the respondents.
****** This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgement passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur dated 27.1.2010. By the aforesaid judgement, the Original Application filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner had in the Original Application prayed for a direction to the respondents to promote him as Assistant Engineer following his attainment of a degree in Engineering and completion of period of five years in the grade of Junior Engineer. Petitioner relied on the judgement of Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi dated 30.1.2001 in O.A. No.2055/1995 wherein it was held that period of completion of five years of regular service in the grade of Junior Engineer irrespective of date of acquisition of the degree in Engineering would entitle him for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. The Calcutta Bench in O.A. No.1057/1987, however, took a contrary view against which Special Leave to Petition No.27230/94 was filed by the department, which too was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 9.11.1995. But, thereafter Calcutta Bench in its judgement dated 6.5.1994 in O.A. No.1078/1989 has held that five years experience as Junior Engineer has to be counted from the date of acquisition of degree in Engineering. This resulted in reversion of several Assistant Engineers, who were already promoted following earlier interpretation and they approached the Central Administrative Tribunal again. The review petition was filed before the Calcutta High Court with respect of its judgement dated 6.5.1994, supra, which was dismissed vide order dated 9.4.1994. Then SLP No.21236/1995 was filed, which was dismissed with liberty to approach the lower forum. It was thereafter that O.A. No.2055/1999 was filed again before the Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal. The matter was then referred to Full Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. No.2055/1995 filed by Jagdish Chandra and others vs. Union of India & Ors. and O.A. No.409/1995, Pradyut Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors. The Full Bench at Principal Seat in its order dated 6.12.1999 answered the reference in negative and therefore irrespective of the date of acquisition of degree, the qualificatory Bench Marks was held to be five years regular service in the grade of Junior Engineer and nothing more. Same view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in A.K. Raghumani and others vs. Gopal Nath-2000 (3) SCALE 39.
The Tribunal at Jaipur disposed of the Original Application filed by the writ petitioner herein observing that in view of Full Bench decision of the Tribunal at the Principal Seat and the judgement of Supreme Court, nothing more is required to be done except recording the statement of respondents that applicant (writ-petitioner) will also be promoted in accordance with the seniority and that he had opted himself for the present in the zone earmarked for 5 years regular experience and qualitative degree in engineering, he will be promoted. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer that the judgement of the Tribunal be set aside and the Original Application may be allowed in the terms of the prayers contained therein.
Shri Rajvir Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondents in reply to the Original Application before the Tribunal contended that the petitioner is a regular Junior Engineer and has completed five years regular service. Although, he is eligible for promotion, but could not be promoted due to non-availability of vacancies in the grade of Assistant Engineer. Aggrieved by such stand of the respondents some other employees approached the different bench of the Tribunal. All similar matters were transferred to Principal Bench, Delhi which decided them by common judgement dated 30.10.2001 and directed the respondents to consider their cases for promotion. In para 15 of their reply to the Original Application filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal, it was submitted by the respondents that since the aforesaid judgement of the Tribunal has been challenged before the Delhi High Court and same is pending, therefore, compliance of the orders of the aforesaid judgement of the Tribunal is not presently possible, otherwise it will give rise to the multiplicity of the proceedings.
Shri Rajvir Sharma has cited before us the judgement of Delhi High Court and submitted that the writ petition filed by the Union of India has been dismissed by the Tribunal, leading judgement being delivered in Biswajit Basu & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., WP (C) No.4542/2000 on 12.8.2010.
In view of aforesaid statement of fact and keeping in view the fact that learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to dispute the fact about the stand taken by the respondents before the Tribunal in the reply and also the fact that the writ petition filed by the respondents against the judgement dated 30.1.2001 delivered at Principal Bench of the Tribunal at New Delhi referred to in para 10 of their reply, has been dismissed, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to comply and implement the aforesaid judgement dated 30.1.2001 qua the petitioner herein in the same manner in which it was implemented with respect to the applicants before Tribunal in those matters and grant him benefit of promotion as per his seniority from the date his immediate junior was promoted with all consequential benefits.
Compliance of the judgement be made within three months from the date copy of this judgement is produced before the respondents.
(DR.MEENA V GOMBER),J. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/
All corrections made in the judgement/order have been incorporated in the judgement/order being emailed. (Ravi Sharma,P.A.