Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Road Safety Cell vs National Highway Authority Of India ... on 1 March, 2012
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi OA No. 08/2011 MA No.131/2012 Reserved on :23.01.2012 Pronounced on : 01.03.2012 Honble Mr. Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Deputy General Manager (Finance), National Highway Authority of India, G-5 & 6, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi. Presently posted at Road Safety Cell, Gurgaon with Headquarter at New Delhi. Applicant (By Advocates : Shri Nidhesh Gupta, Senior Advocate with Shri Tarun Gupta) Versus 1. National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), Through its Chairman, G-5 & 6, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi. 2. Shri P.K. Aggarwal, Former General Manager (Finance), National Highway Authority of India Now Director (Finance), India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. Scope Complex, CGO Complex, New Delhi. 3. Dr. A. Didar Singh, Former Member (Finance), National Highway Authority of India Now Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, Akbar Hotel, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi. 4. Mr. R. Mukundan, Former Chief Vigilance Officer, now Executive Director (Estt.), Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi. 5. Shri Prakash Nevetia, Deputy General Manager (Administration), National Highway Authority of India, G-5 & 6, Sector 10 , Dwarka, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocates : Shri Jos Chiramel for Respondent Nos.1&3, Shri Rajinder Khatter for Respondent No.4 and Shri P.P. Khurana, Senior Advocate with Shri P.P. Singh for Respondent No.2.) : ORDER :
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) Shri Rajesh Gupta, the applicant in the present OA, has been aggrieved by the action of the respondent National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) in the appointment of the 2nd respondent (Shri P.K. Aggarwal) as Deputy General Manager (F&A) vide order dated 21.12.2009 (Annexure-A1) and General Manager (Finance) [GM(F) in short] vide order dated 15.2.2010 (Annexure-A1A) and has sought his case to be considered for appointment to the post of GM(F) by opening the sealed cover in which the recommendation of the Selection Committee meeting held on 21.12.2009 was illegally put with malafide intention. He has also challenged the charge sheet issued to him on 10.3.2010. He has, therefore, approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with following relief(s) :-
(a) strike down the appointment of Respondent No.2 herein Shri P.K. Aggarwal as Deputy General Manager (F&A) dated 21.12.2009 and the subsequent appointment dated 15.2.2010 as General Manager (Finance).
(b) strike down the proceedings of the Selection Committee dated 21.12.2009 for the post of General Manager (Finance) being completely arbitrary, malafide, violative of basic principles of law and otherwise illegal, as demonstrated in the preceding paragraphs.
(c) the proceedings dated 21.12.2009 and 15.3.2010 for the appointment to the post of General Manager (Finance) be conducted afresh.
(d) the charge-sheet dated 10.3.2010 against the Applicant be quashed; and
(e) pass such other and further orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The brief factual matrix of the case which led the applicant to come before the Tribunal with above prayers would disclose that the applicant came earlier to this Tribunal in OA No.572/2008 with the prayer to direct the NHAI to prepare a fresh panel for the appointment to the post of DGM(F) as per the regulations by quashing the selection made by the Selection Committee dated 3.9.2004, 21.11.2006 and 8.6.2007 on account of the violation of NHAI Regulations, 1996. The said OA was decided on 29.9.2008 in following terms :-
14. Having given careful consideration to the submissions made before us as well as the pleadings, we are of the considered view that the proceedings of the Selection Committees dated 03.09.2004, 21.11.2006 and 08.06.2007 suffer from infirmity and illegality, especially with regard to the constitution of the Committees as well as on account of violation of the statutory Regulations of 1996 with regard to the requirement of 12 years experience related to major infrastructural projects contained in the Regulations. We, therefore, set aside the recommendations of these Selection Committees and consequently the appointments, if any, made on that basis will also be null and void. The respondents would be at liberty to hold fresh selections and give effect to the recommendations in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The candidates shall be allowed to participate in fresh selections as might be held with relaxation in age if necessary. There shall be no order as to costs. Feeling aggrieved by the above order, the NHAI carried the case to Honble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No.617/2009 which was dismissed vide judgment dated 03.07.2009. The pertinent paragraphs of the said judgment relevant to the present OA are reproduced below :-
23. In the wake of this legal position, justification given for relaxation in experience would not be of any help of the petitioner. Even if we accept that in the absence of such relaxation there would not have been eligible candidates for the post and, therefore, action of the NHAI in giving relaxation of uniform basis in all cases was bona fide, such a bona fide action would not validate an illegal action. Law mandates that when a particular procedure is prescribed, executive authority is bound to act as per the said procedure or not at all. If NHAI is facing difficulty in getting the candidates as per the qualifications prescribed in the Rule, appropriate specific provision empowering the competent authority to relax the existing conditions. Such administrative difficulties cannot be a ground to ignore the statutory rules. So long as they exist, they have to be followed. It is misconceived on the part of the petitioner to contend that the respondent No.1 is not prejudicially affected. In fact, for the post of DGM (F&A) four years of experience as Manager (FA&) is required, which the respondent No.1fulfilled and his averment that he was the only eligible candidate could not be refuted by the petitioner.
24. Regulation 12(2) of the Regulations provides two channels for appointment to the post of DGM (F&A), namely, promotion channel and deputation channel. It, however, appears that requirements of these two separate channels was not followed by the Selection Committee.
. . . ..
. . . ..
27. An argument in terrorem was advanced by the learned ASG, namely the impugned order would set aside large number of appointments. It was rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that the instant case was only concerned with the selection to the post of DGM (F&A). Moreover, most of the concerned persons who came on deputation by those selections have already left NHAI, as per the admission of NHAI in writ petition itself (Ground-W). Only three persons, namely, respondent Nos.2, 5 & 7, are going to be affected. Significantly, they have not even approached the Court challenging the judgment of the Tribunal and, thus, it appears that they have accepted the judgment. Furthermore, when their appointments are found to be illegal as they did not even fulfill the requisite qualifications, these have to be treated as non est.
28. The present case is an eye opener for the NHAI which has to put its house in order by following the procedure as laid down in the Regulations or else is supposed to take remedial measures to cater to the ground realities. In any case, once illegalities are found in the selection process, it is difficult to validate the same. We, thus, are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of the Tribunal.
29. Finding no merit in this petition, we dismiss the same with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/-. The applicant, claiming the non compliance of the Tribunal order dated 29.9.2008 in OA No.572/2008, filed a Contempt Petition which was decided by the Tribunal on 15.09.2009 directing the NHAI to comply with the decision before 31.12.2009. It is the case of the applicant that NHAI convened the Selection Committee and the applicant along with the 2nd respondent was promoted to the post of DGM (F) vide order dated 21.12.2009. However, on 21.12.2009, he was handed over a letter asking him to appear in an interview on the same date for the post of GM(F). Protesting that he did not have time to prepare for the pre-panel interview which was unfair and arbitrary, he attended the interview. However, he brought the said unfair approach to the notice of the 1st respondent on 15.1.2010. He received the letter dated 05.02.2010 intimating him about the vigilance clearance of his name from the alleged forged bank guarantee case. Further, he was called for an interview for the post of GM(F) but as he was asked to attend a crucial arbitration meeting by the Project Director on 15.3.2010 (the date of the interview) which he attended, he could not participate in the interview. He, of course, wrote to the 1st respondent a letter dated 16.3.2010 intimating the above facts and prayed to grant him an opportunity to appear before the Selection Committee for interview for the post of GM(F) He was, however, not granted any opportunity. In respect of the earlier Selection Committee meeting held on 21.12.2009, he came to know that his case was placed in sealed cover as the vigilance clearance had not been given due to the departmental disciplinary case relating to the forged bank guarantee case. It is his case that he has been exonerated of the said case. Hence, it is averred that sealed cover procedure has been illegally adopted. As he was posted at Durgapur after 21.12.2009, he could come to know the sealed cover case for his promotion much later and feeling aggrieved by the said action, he represented to the 1st respondent on 20.7.2010. It is the case of the applicant that in order to prevent him from promotion, he was served with charge sheet dated 10.3.2010 in the case relating to the maintenance package. Being frustrated by the action of the NHAI, he is before the Tribunal in the instant OA.
3. Highlighting the background of the case, Shri Nidhesh Gupta, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Tarun Gupta, learned counsel would contend that the applicant was the only eligible candidate for the post of GM(F) in NHAI as held by Honble High Court of Delhi in the judgment dated 03.07.2009 in WP(C) No.617/2009, while upholding the order of the Tribunal in OA No.572/2008. His second contention is that the Selection Committee meeting for the post of GM (F) though initially fixed on 23.12.2009 ought not to have been preponed to 21.12.2009. Shri Gupta would contend that the preponment of the interview was a strategic move by the NHAI in order to deprive the applicant to participate in the interview. He wondered, when the DGM(F) posting order was issued on 21.12.2009, how on the same date interview for GM(F) was fixed? He also referred to the purported discussion between two senior officers of NHAI i.e. 3rd and the 4th respondents which indicated the intention to deny applicants promotion to the post of GM (F). His submission is that the 3rd respondent with malafide intention to prevent applicants promotion to the post of GM(F) got the interview preponed to 21.12.2009, the date on which he relinquished the post of Member (Fin) NHAI, despite the fact that other Member NHAI was available. The applicant represented to the Chairman NHAI on 15.01.2010. Learned senior counsel would submit that even for the next interview held on 15.3.2010 for the post of GM(F), the applicant was asked to attend the arbitration proceedings on the same day for which he could not participate in the interview and the selection which continued for some days thereafter, he was not allowed to appear despite his request to the authorities. His next limb of contention is that though the applicant was exonerated of the charges on 03.9.2009 and no other charge was impediment for his promotion, the recommendation by the Selection Committee was illegally put in the sealed cover. The 2nd respondent did the same with malafide intention. He further submitted that on the direction of the Tribunal, the NHAI could not produce the sealed cover as the same was delinked from the minutes of the Selection Committee and ultimately the sealed cover could not be located. In the absence of the sealed cover, the applicant has been seriously prejudiced and enquiry purported to be in progress to fix responsibility will not in any manner help the applicants case. His allegation is that the missing of the sealed cover has been done by the officers inimical to the applicant to harm him as he filed this OA against the illegal action in putting Selection Committee recommendations in the sealed cover. It is further submitted that the applicant has been issued a charge sheet in March, 2010 in an alleged misconduct where the applicant is not involved and the same should be quashed. It is urged that the OA should be allowed with direction to promote the applicant to the post of GM(F) w.e.f. the date when the 2nd respondent was promoted.
4. Shri Jos Chiramel, learned counsel initially appearing on behalf of the 1st, 3rd and 5th respondents requested in MA No.131/2010 to be discharged for the 5th respondent and requested for adjournment on the ground that the sealed cover was missing. During the final hearing, his prayer for discharge alone was permitted.
5. On behalf of the 1st and 3rd respondents Shri Chiramel would submit that the present OA being the second round of litigation, he would refer to the earlier application filed by the applicant. In the OA No.572/2008, the applicant challenged the Selection Committee meeting for the post of DGM (F) which was allowed by the Tribunal on 29.9.2008 on two main grounds i.e. (i) the Selection Committee was not constituted as per NHAI Recruitment Rules and (ii) external candidates did not have requisite 12 years experience. Pursuant to the said directions, the Selection Committee met on 13.11.2009. The applicant and 2nd respondent were promoted as DGM (F) vide order dated 21.12.2009. It is contended that the applicant has not come to the Tribunal with clean hands as he has not enclosed the Office Order dated 13.11.2009. Shri Chiramel informs that 2nd respondent has been working as DGM(F) since 2004 vide Office Order dated 14.09.2004 and the applicant has been promoted as DGM(F) from 2004 with all financial benefits though order was passed on 21.12.2009. He submits that the 2nd respondent was promoted as GM(F) vide Office Order dated 25.6.2007. It is contended that the applicant reaped the benefits as he was not even the applicant for the post of DGM(F) in the year 2004 and 2006. His contention is that the Tribunal order has not questioned the selection of 2nd respondent as GM(Finance) in the Selection Committee meeting held on 08.06.2007, but the NHAI considered both applicant and 2nd respondent in the review Selection Committee on 21.12.2009 for the post of GM(F) where the 2nd respondent was selected and the recommendation on the applicant was kept in the sealed cover as he was facing a disciplinary proceeding vide charge sheet dated 15.1.2007. The 2nd respondent was promoted as GM(F) vide order dated 15.2.2010. Refuting the contention that the applicant was the only eligible candidate, Shri Chiramel drew our attention to the High Court judgment to state that the applicant did not file any counter affidavit to WP(C) No.617/2009 and argued that observation of High Court was contrary to record. Referring to the applicants ground of preponment, the learned counsel for the official respondents clarified that the review Selection Committee for the GM(F) post was not necessary as (i) 2nd respondents selection as GM(F) in the Selection Committee meeting held on 8.6.2007 was not under challenge in OA No.572/2008, (ii) 2nd respondents selection was not quashed by the Tribunal in its order. But the review Selection Committee met on 21.12.2009 as the 3rd respondent, a Member of the Selection Committee was to relinquish his charge on that date to join his next place of posting. Further, the applicant was not affected by the preponment and he even did not object to the preponment. Rather, he took part in the interview the only method of selection process and after knowing that his case has been put in sealed cover, represented only on 15.1.2010 and few times thereafter. In respect of the malafide alleged to quash the charge sheet, Shri Chiramel contends that the applicant was exonerated by granting him the benefit of doubt but the bank guarantee were in fact forged as a result the NHAI suffered loss of above Rs.212 crore. Applicants case is linked to P.C. Aryas case. Though the charge sheet dated 15.1.2007 was disposed of exonerating him but he had been facing one more charge sheet dated 10.3.2010 where serious financial irregularities were being enquired into. His submission is that though the next interview to fill up the G.M.(F) post took place on 15.3.2010, the applicant despite being at Delhi, did not attend the interview and now he had advanced the plea that as he was asked to handle the arbitration proceeding he could not participate in the interview. This plea was taken as the ground for postponment of the interview. He refuted the allegations levelled against the 4th respondent as he had no role in asking the applicant to attend the arbitration work. Referring to the missing of the sealed cover, Shri Chiramel would contend that sealed cover was initially part of the Selection Committee minutes and was later delinked. Shri Jos Chiramel would submit that the sealed cover has not been linked back. The applicant being the interested party for the same, his contention is that there is complexity in the applicants involvement in the missing of the sealed cover. However, he hastened to add that an inquiry has been ordered to find out how and why the sealed cover was not kept in the relevant records and who was responsible for the loss/ missing of the sealed cover. He also submits that malafide alleged against the respondent No.3, the applicant should be put to test as to how such malafide could be attributed to him when the third respondent has done his work as per the normal official procedure. Besides, the third respondent was then the Member (Finance) and selection post to which the interview was to be held being GM(F), the concerned Member who has to be part of the Selection Committee was Member (Finance). Therefore, the allegation of the applicant that the third respondent being inimical to him has got the meeting preponed does not hold ground and needs to be rejected. With regard to the second interview for the post of GM(F), the applicant did not participate in the interview. The plea taken by the applicant that he was sent for arbitration and, therefore, the interview could have been postponed would not be logical as he was given adequate time to inform the Competent Authority to decide as to whether the interview should be postponed or any other officer would attend the arbitration allowing the applicant to participate in the interview to be conducted by the Selection Committee. Further, the applicant having been proceeded with in a second disciplinary case, for which the charges have been framed against him in March, 2010, the applicant would not be eligible to be promoted to the post of GM(F). He placed his reliance on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India and Others Versus Upendra Singh to highlight that the Tribunal should not interfere at the interlocutory stage when the charges have been framed to be properly enquired into. In view of the contentions advanced by Shri Jos Chiramel, he submits that the OA deserves to be dismissed.
6. Representing the second respondent, learned Senior Counsel Shri P.P. Khurana assisted by P.P. Singh, learned counsel would submit that the second respondent was eligible to be considered for the post of DGM(F) and GM(F) and was properly selected by both the Selection Committees and was promoted. He contends that as the second respondent is no longer with the National Highways Authority of India and is presently working as Director (F), India Tourism Development Corporation, the second respondent would in no manner be prejudiced if the applicant is promoted to the post of GM(F).
7. On behalf of the 4th respondent Shri Rajinder Khatter, learned counsel would submit that the applicant, being biased against the 4th respondent, has alleged malafides against him which are far from true. The alleged conversation reported by the applicant that he would not be selected for the post of GM(F) was rather misconceived. It is denied on the ground that the interview was scheduled to be held on 15.3.2010 when the 4th respondent was absent. Further, 4th respondent did not discuss the alleged conversation with the third respondent as has been alleged by the applicant. He would further submit that the charge sheet dated 10.3.2010 was issued to the applicant based on the investigation conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) which was examined by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and on the basis of the materials available, the said charge sheet was issued. Further, it is contended that the said charge sheet was not placed before the 4th respondent as CVO but was dealt by his successor (Shri Aloke Prasad) who is not in the array of party respondents. Shri Khatter, therefore, submits that the allegations against the 4th respondent being baseless needs to be outright rejected.
8. Having heard the above contentions of the parties, we have carefully gone through the documents on record. The relief(s) prayed for our consideration and determination are two fold viz (1) applicants promotion to the post of GM(F) with effect from the date the 2nd respondent was promoted (15.2.2010) when the recommendation of the Selection Committee in his case was put in the sealed cover; and (2) quashing of the charge sheet dated 10.3.2010.
9. We may examine the facts on the 1st issue. Applicant was eligible to be considered for the post of GM(Finance). Though, the issue that he was the only eligible person for the said post, was raised on the basis of the observation of the Honble High Court in the judgment in the WP (C) No.617/2009, it is noted that the observation in the said judgment did not consider the question of the eligibility of other candidates. The Selection Committee has considered the applicant being eligible along with others including the 2nd respondent whose selection to the post of DGM(F) alongwith others was quashed by the Tribunal. We notice that the 2nd respondent and the applicant were found eligible for the post of DGM(F) and selected to the said post, even both got promotion to the post retrospectively. In respect of the 2nd respondents eligibility for the post of GM(F), it is seen that he has been selected by the Selection Committee as far back as in 2007 and has been working in the said post all through. His candidature for the consideration of the Selection Committee for the post of GM(F) was the consequential necessity, as the entire selection process for the post of DGM(F) [the feeder post for the GM(F)] was quashed by the Tribunal in the OA No.572/2008 and upheld by the High Court in WP(C) No.617/2009. We do not find any illegality in the consideration of the 2nd respondent for the post of GM(F).
10. The next issue for determination is whether the decision of the Selection Committee to put its recommendation on the applicant for the GM(F) post in the sealed cover is legally sustainable?
11. It is trite law that the sealed cover procedure can be adopted by the Departmental Promotion Committee or Selection Committee in case of promotion to a higher post only if the concerned employee being considered for the said higher post is either under suspension or facing departmental charges or criminal proceedings. In this context, we are guided by the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. Versus K.V. Janakiraman [1991-4-SCC-190]. In the background of the well settled position in law on the sealed cover procedure, we examined the facts of the present case. It is noticed that the Selection Committee met on 21.12.2009 for conducting interview where applicant participated for the post of GM(F). On that day, the applicant was neither under suspension nor he was facing criminal charges in a Trial Court and on that day he stood exonerated from a disciplinary case which was initiated against him vide the charge sheet dated 15.1.2007. His exoneration order was passed on 03.09.2009. It is worthwhile to note here that the Selection Committee for consideration of the applicant to the post of GM(F) was held on 21.12.2009 i.e. after three months of his exoneration, and on the said date, his promotion to the post of DGM(F) was also issued. If he was fit to be promoted to the post of DGM(F) and no sealed cover procedure was adopted, we wonder as to how and why the sealed cover procedure was adopted for his promotion to the post of GM(F). It is admitted fact that no charges were pending against him either departmentally or in criminal proceedings against the applicant and as such there was no circumstance under which the sealed cover procedure should have been adopted. Thus, adoption of the sealed cover in case of the recommendation of the Selection Committee on the applicants promotion to the post of GM(F) is considered as an arbitrary and illegal decision. At this stage, we must note that we directed the respondents to bring the sealed cover to the court for our perusal to know what was the recommendation of the Selection Committee? But on the final hearing, the learned counsel for the first respondent reported us that the sealed cover was missing. The needle of suspension was shown towards the applicant by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent stating that he was the interested party, whereas the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant would submit that those who were inimical towards the applicant strategically removed the recommendation of the Selection Committee to create confusion as well as to prevent the timely promotion of the applicant to the post of GM(F). It is noticed that first respondent is conducting an inquiry to find out the persons behind missing of the sealed cover. Of course, he would take action as appropriate in this regard but we note that the applicant has been definitely prejudiced by the action of the respondents in illegally putting the recommendations of the Selection Committee in sealed cover and reporting that the said sealed cover was missing.
12. Other associated issues on the applicants consideration for promotion to the post of GM(F) have been examined by us. We find that no malafide can be attributed to the second respondent for the preponment of the Selection Committee for the said post to 21.12.2009, as he was handing over charge on that day to join his new post in the Government. It is noted that he was only discharging his lawful duty to ensure that timely selection is completed for the post of GM(F) as the direction of the Tribunal was to complete the entire selection process before end of 31st December, 2009. Another set of allegations which have been attributed against the 3rd respondent relates to the alleged conversation between the 3rd and 4th respondents to prevent applicants selection to the post of GM(F) but in the absence of any supporting records and evidence to substantiate the same being placed before us by the applicant, such malafides would be only wild allegation. Thus, we are not convinced of the alleged malafides attributed against the 3rd respondent.
13. With regard to the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant that the applicant was prevented to participate in the next selection process which was held on 15.3.2010 as he was sent to the meeting of the arbitration. The plea taken by the respondents was that the applicant did not inform the problem in advance. A careful scrutiny of the pleading manifests that he has been asked to attend the interview of the Selection Committee and the applicant had sufficient time to take the permission of the respondents before the interview to reschedule the arbitration meeting or to ensure some other officer to participate in the said arbitration meeting whereby he could have attended the interview on 15.3.2010. Admittedly, he did not do so and he sent a letter to the first respondent only after the interview date was over. Thus, applicants contention does not convince us for any interference.
14. In respect of the 2nd issue i.e. prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 10.3.2010, we note that the applicant has raised the issue at the interlocutory stage. The applicant has already denied the charges in his representation to the Disciplinary Authority. The Inquiry Officer has been appointed and inquiry is progressing where the applicant is participating. It is trite law that at the interlocutory stage of the departmental proceedings the powers of the Courts and Tribunal are limited to mainly two aspects for interference, i.e. (a) if the charges have been framed by the incompetent authority; and (b) if the delayed framing of charges has caused any prejudice to the delinquent employee. In the instant case, these two situations/causes do not exist. Thus, our interference is not necessary. However, we direct the Competent Authority to decide the said departmental disciplinary proceeding against the applicant, which is already more than 23 months old, within a period of three months from today.
15. Taking into account the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the illegality has crept in the selection process when the Selection Committee recommendation of the applicant has been put in the sealed cover, as on that date, he was not facing any charge in the departmental or criminal proceedings nor he was under suspension. Having noted that such illegality has prevented the applicant to get his promotion due to the sealed cover procedure adopted by the Selection Committee, it is noticed that the agony of the applicant was compounded in the sense that the sealed cover was also missing. We draw adverse inference against the 1st respondent and in favour of the applicant. We would, therefore, direct the first respondent to convene review Selection Committee for the post of GM(F) as if the selection process is taking place on the date (21.12.2009) on which the last Selection Committee was held. In case he is found fit in the selection, he would be granted promotion from the date (15.2.2010) on which the second respondent was promoted to the post of GM(F) and he would be entitled to all consequential benefits including seniority and pay and allowances.
16. Resultantly, the Original Application having merits is allowed in terms of our above orders, directions and observations. We compute the cost of litigation as Rs.25000/- and is imposed on the 1st respondent in favour of the applicant.
( Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda ) ( V.K. Bali )
Member (A) Chairman
rk.