Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Ramkesh Meena vs Mcd And Others on 2 April, 2009
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH T.A. 431/2009 New Delhi this the 2nd day of April, 2009 Honble Mr. Justice M. Ramachandran, Vice Chairman (J) Honble Mr. N.D. Dayal, Member (A) Sh. Ramkesh Meena, S/o Shri Kishan Gopal Meena, R/o Flat No. 38, Pocket-24, Sector-24, Rohini, Delhi-85 Applicant. (By Advocate: Mrs. Priyanka Bhardwaj proxy for Sh. M.K.Bhardwaj ) VERSUS MCD and others. Through 1. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Town Hall, Delhi- 110006 2. The Director (Pers), Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Town Hall, Delhi-110006 ... Respondents. (None present) O R D E R (ORAL)
Honble Mr. Justice M. Ramachandran, Vice Chairman (j).
After the writ petition had been transferred over to this Tribunal, although the applicant was present, consistently the respondents are remaining absent. The High Court had notified the date of appearance but without showing sufficient cause absence continues. We may also notice that directions were issued to the respondents to come up with counter affidavit, but none has been filed, although respondents had taken notice of the petition as early as on 29.08.2008.
2. Mrs. Bhardwaj also submits that the issue is practically covered by ruling in his favour (OA 1615/2007 and OA 1185/2007). The applicant is a Junior Engineer under the respondents and he is entitled to gain promotion by virtue of his seniority. The MCD, the respondents, had by office orders dated 16.07.2007, promoted officers who are working as Junior Engineers, as Assistant Engineers and the officers are on probation. It was after the DPC cleared them in the promotee list. To his surprise, the applicant had found names of juniors and he had represented the matter but had not been favoured with reply.
3. It is conceded that in an FIR filed before the Criminal Court, the applicants name finds a place along with certain other officers of the council. It is submitted that on the date of the DPC or even as late as on the date of the filing of the writ petition, no charge sheet had been filed. Referring on Jankiraman (AIR 1991 SC 2010), it is submitted that the Departmental instructions are clear that unless there is a disciplinary inquiry going on or a charge sheet in a criminal case, a persons right of promotion is not to be interdicted. Mrs. Bhardwaj submits that without taking notice of this legal position, the applicants name has been placed in a sealed cover. For want of defence or counter statement, it is not possible to notice the stand of the respondents. On the facts of the case, therefore, we have to accept the pleadings as have been presented before us. We do not find any satisfactory explanation as to why the applicant has not been promoted and instead the DPC had thought it fit to place his name in the sealed cover.
4. We do not think, it is necessary to direct holding of a fresh DPC since the applicants name has already been noticed by the DPC. Within two weeks of receipt of a copy of this order, the respondents are directed to open the sealed cover. If there is recommendation for granting benefit, from the date on which he would have normally been entitled to be promoted considering his seniority position, he is to be promoted and his salary has to be appropriately fixed. But applicant will not be entitled to actual arrears. We make no order as to costs. Of course, we have directed as above on a presumption that applicant would have been recommended by DPC. If not, we preserve the rights of the applicant for proceeding in a manner legally admissible to him.
( N. D, Dayal) ( M. Ramachandran )
Member (A) Vice Chairman (J)
`SRD