Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
S Kasiviswanathan vs M/O Railways on 5 July, 2024
1 OA No. 741/2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00741/2013
Dated this, the 5th day of July Two Thousand & Twenty Four
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, Member (A)
HON'BLE MR.M. SWAMINATHAN, Member (J)
S.Kasi Viswanathan, S/o. Late S. Sundararajan,
Residing at Elim Avenue, Flat No. 8,
New Door No. 48 & 50,
Venkatesa Bakthan Street,
Purasawalkam, Chennai 600007. .....Applicant
By Advocate M/s. Giridhar & Sai
Vs.
1.Union of India,
Rep by Secretary,
Ministry of Railways,
Rail Bhavan, New Delhi 110001.
2.Chairman,
Railway Board,
Ministry of Railways,
Rail Bhaavan,
New Delhi 110001.
3.Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT),
North Block,
New Delhi 110001.
4.General Manager,
Southern Railway,
Park Town, Chennai 600003. ....Respondents
By Advocate Mr. R. S. Krishnaswamy
2 OA No. 741/2013
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, Member(A)) This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) to direct the Respondents to conduct Review DPC and to promote and regularize the Adhoc service of the Applicant in the post of Group A (Senior Law Officer) with effect from 01.04.2006 on regular basis with all consequential benefits against the vacancy period of 2006-07, the date on which (09-03-2006) number of posts are increased from 8 to 14, if the vacancy period is held to be of 2006-2007 after the correct assessment of vacancies as per Railway recruitment Rules, 1992.
(ii) to direct the 4th Respondent to promote the Applicant to Junior Administrative Grade with effect from 01-04-2009 on adhoc basis on completion of 3 years adhoc service by restoring the said post of Junior Administrative Grade with all consequential benefits as the applicant was discharging the duties of JA Grade officer's from 01/04/2009.
(iii) to direct the Respondents to promote the Applicant to the Junior Administrative Grade on regular basis with effect from 2011, on completion of 5 years in Group A, with all consequential benefits;
(iv) to award costs and pass such further and other orders as may be deemed fit and proper and thus render justice."
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the Applicant, are as follows, in brief:-
2.1. The Applicant who was an advocate, was appointed in the Legal Department of the Southern Railway on 01.12.1983, as Law Assistant in Group C, following his selection by the Railway Service Commission as a Direct Recruit (Annexure A-1). He was promoted, on which 15.04.1998, as Assistant Law Officer which is a Group "B" Post.
2.2. By an order, dated 28.06.2005, the Applicant was promoted, on ad hoc basis, as Senior Law Officer, which is a Group "A" Post. Under the 3 OA No. 741/2013 extant rules, promotion is on the basis of assessment of ACRs from among those who had completed 8 years of service in the post of Assistant Law Officer. Thereafter, following the retirement of one Ms. Padmini Chandrashekaran, Deputy Chief Law Officer, in the Junior Administrative Grade (JAG), the Applicant was promoted, on ad-hoc basis, to the said post, from 1.04.2009, vide order, dated 19.03.2009, (Annexure A-3) and worked, as such, till his retirement, on 30.04.2012, after 7 years. 2.3. The Applicant learnt that his papers were sent to the UPSC by the Railway Board, on 06.03.2012, for conferment of Group 'A' while he was in service, on the basis of the information received under the RTI Act. It was also disclosed that the DPC was proposed to meet on 30.04.2012, the last working day of the Applicant, but was adjourned to 04.05.2012. UPSC cleared the Applicant's name, in his favour, on 04.05.2012, four days after the retirement of the Applicant for the vacancy period of 2010-11 and his junior, Ravi Jauhri, was also granted Group 'A' for the year 2011-12. 2.4. As per DoPT OM No.22011/5/86-Estt(D), dated 10.04.1989, (Annexure A-4), detailed instructions have been issued, inter alia, providing that the DPC should be convened at regular intervals by laying down a time schedule for the purpose of drawing panels which could be utilised for making promotions against the vacancies occurring during the course of a year and for future vacancies.4 OA No. 741/2013
2.5. In the case of the Applicant, although regular vacancies arose in previous years, no action was taken to fill up the posts on a regular basis.
The Applicant understood that the records were sent to the UPSC and the UPSC cleared the Applicant's name for promotion to Group "A" (Senior Law Officer) for the panel year 2010-11 (Annexure A6), on the basis of a proposal sent by the Railway Ministry, recommending his name in March, 2012, for one of the four vacancies, which arose in the year 2010-11. Admittedly, he was within the zone of consideration and had adequate merit. The DPC considered the performance of eligible employees, by scrutinising the ACRs of five years up to the year 2009-10 only. Although, the Applicant was very much functioning in the post of Senior Law Officer from June, 2005, in the available vacancy, and has drawn salary for the Sr.Scale post, the DPC was constituted only in the year 2012, in total violation of the aforesaid instructions of the DOPT and of several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
2.6. The Applicant was granted Group 'A' by the UPSC against the vacancy for period of 2010-11 on 04.05.2012, four days after his retirement (Annexure A6). Had the papers of the Applicant been processed in time, before the vacancy period of 2010-11, the Applicant would have been conferred with Group 'A' on 01.01.2010, itself. The failure of the Respondents to promote the Applicant to Group "A" / Senior Law Officer post on a regular basis, although he was fully qualified to hold the said post, 5 OA No. 741/2013 after getting clearance from the UPSC, for the vacancy period of 2010-11, and in fact has been holding the said post for nearly seven years till his retirement on 30.04.2012 is arbitrary and illegal. He, therefore, submitted a representation, dated 22.10.2012 (Annexure A-7), and a further letter, dated 01.04.2013 (Annexure A-8), setting out the above facts and seeking regular promotion to Group "A", with effect from the year 2010-11, and also to notionally confer the Junior Administrative Grade, on adhoc basis, from the year 2010. But, till date there has been no response.
2.7. Aggrieved, the Applicant has filed this OA.
3.1. The respondents have filed a reply opposing the prayer of the applicant. It is submitted that promotions of Group "B" officers of Zonal Railways to Group "A" are regulated in terms of the guidelines contained in DOP&T OM No.22011/5/86-Estt. (D), dated 10.04.1989. As per para 17.11 of the said guidelines, regarding "date from which promotions are to be treated as regular", in the cases where the Commission's approval is also required, the date of UPSC's letter communicating its approval or the date of actual promotion of the officer, whichever is later, should be reckoned as the date of regular promotion of the officer. As far as the applicant's case is concerned, the DPC meeting was held on 04.05.2012, but his promotion orders could not be issued in terms of instructions contained in DOP&T O.M., dated 12.10.1998 (Annexure R.2), as he had ceased to be in service as on the date of effect of the DPC recommendations, ie., 10.05.2012, due to 6 OA No. 741/2013 his retirement on superannuation on 30.04.2012, his date of birth being 23.04.1952.
3.2. The senior scale cadre of the Law Department consists of 13 posts. As per the Recruitment Rules, 1992, for the Law Department, 66.66% posts of Law Officer in Group 'A'/Senior Scale are to be filled by promotion, failing which by transfer on deputation (including short-term contract)/transfer and the remaining 33.33% by transfer on deputation(including short-term contract)/ transfer, failing which by direct recruitment. The promotion quota in the senior scale, i.e., 66.66%, consists of 9 posts. So far as selection through promotion is concerned, Assistant Law Officers and Estate Officers with a Degree in Law from a recognized University or equivalent and having, at least, 8 years of regular service in Group 'B' are eligible. 3.3. In the case of miscellaneous cadres, namely, Law, Public Relations Officer, Hindi Department, etc., DPC for filling up the vacancies in Group 'A'/Senior Scale is held only on occurrence of vacancy/vacancies due to promotion/retirement/voluntary retirement/death, etc., of the present incumbent of the post.
3.4. The proposal for filling up promotion quota vacancies of Law Officer in Group 'A'/Senior Scale for the vacancy years 2009-10 and 2010-11 was initiated on 12.09.2011. Subsequently, a DPC proposal for promotion to the post of Law Officer in Group 'A'/ Senior scale was framed for the vacancy years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. The above proposal was taken to the 7 OA No. 741/2013 UPSC on 17.01.2012, 31.01.2012 and 14.02.2012 for delivery under the single window system. However, it was returned on various grounds. The proposal was revised taking into account the issues raised by the UPSC, and was re-submitted to the UPSC on 01.03.2012 for filling up 6 vacancies against the vacancy years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. As two of the officers in the 'zone of consideration' were retiring shortly (one in April and the other in May 2012), UPSC were further requested for fixing an early date for holding the DPC meeting. The name of the applicant was figuring in all the three eligibility lists. The DPC for promotion of Law Officer in Group 'A'/Senior Scale for filling up the above mentioned 6 vacancies was initially fixed to be held on 30.04.2012, at the UPSC office in Delhi, but was latter re-scheduled and held by the UPSC on 4.5.2012, at Hyderabad. 3.5. Railway Federations had also highlighted this issue of delay in promotion on account of delay in conducting DPCs. The Federation's demand for the grant of promotions with retrospective effect in such cases of delay had been considered and a reference was also made to the DOP&T vide Railway Board OM No.E(GP)2004/1/23, dated 01.07.2004 (Annexure R.3), requesting it to consider giving promotions with retrospective effect, reckoning the vacancy year as the due date of promotion rather than the date of approval by the UPSC. However, the DOP&T, in its reply, vide O.M.No.2212/1/2201-Estt(D), dated 29.07.2004 (Annexure - R.4) maintained its consistent policy, underlined in its OM, dated 10.04.1989, 8 OA No. 741/2013 stating, inter-alia, that if the department is unable to hold DPC in time for any bonafide reason, it does not give rise to any vested right for promotion from the date/year of vacancy in terms of some of pertinent judgments, and that there is no concept of "date as due" in the matter of appointments, including promotion, and, as such, it is not possible to accept the proposal. 3.6. It is submitted that the General Managers have been empowered to make ad-hoc promotions in the Senior Scale of Group "B" officers. On the same lines, the applicant has been appointed to work in the Senior Scale on ad-hoc basis, with effect from 28.06.2005. However, for regular promotion to Group "A"/Senior Scale, DPC is convened for considering the senior eligible officers, based on regular vacancies available, wherein, after convening of the DPC, the date of promotion would be the date of UPSC's letter communicating its approval or the date of actual promotion of the officer, whichever is later. The applicant's contention that he was already working on ad-hoc basis, with effect from 28.06.2005, and it is a matter of granting regularization of the ad hoc service only i.e. from ad-hoc Group A to regular Group A, is completely wrong and misleading and not feasible. 3.7. The applicant was eligible to be considered for the vacancies of 2007- 08 onwards. As there was only one UR vacancy for the vacancy year 2007- 08, the name of the applicant could not figure in the zone of consideration as officers senior to the applicant were available.
9 OA No. 741/20133.8. Accordingly, the Respondents have prayed for dismissal of the OA as devoid of merits.
4. The applicant has filed a rejoinder contesting the reply filed by the respondents and prayed for grant of relief.
5. The respondents have filed their reply to rejoinder.
6. Heard both sides and perused the records.
7.1. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the Administrative Ministry/ Department has to follow the Model Calender for DPCs, in letter and spirit, so as to achieve the desired objective of timely convening of DPC/preparation of the approved select panels, within the prescribed time frame.
7.2. He argued that, even retired employees are entitled to promotion against vacancy years prior to their date of retirement. Review DPC should be constituted and they should be considered for promotion to the next higher post. If the applicant is in ad-hoc service with Senior Scale and Pay in the higher post, it has be regularized, retrospectively. He further argued that it is unfair and arbitrary to deny the Applicant regular promotion to the post held by him on an ad-hoc basis because of administrative lapses on the part of the Respondents, resulting in delay in convening the DPC in time. 7.3. The Hon'ble Apex Court, while upholding the decision of the Tribunal in N.R.Banerjee's case, had specifically dwelt on this aspect, and 10 OA No. 741/2013 after considering the law from varied angles, had held the preparation and finalization of the yearly panels as a mandatory requirement.
8. Learned counsel for the Applicant relies upon the following judgments in support of his arguments :-
i. Order, dt. 16.12.1996, of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeals Nos. 16986-87 of 1996 in the case of Union of India and ors Vs. N. R. Banerjee and ors (1997) 9 SCC 287;
ii. Order, dt. 20.04.2017, of Hon'ble Patna High Court, in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2868 of 2017, in the case of Union of India, rep by Secretary, Railway Board and ors Vs. Harendra Prasad Gupta; iii. Order, dt. 23.03.2010, of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 2651-52 of 2010, in the case of Union of India and anr Vs. Hemraj Singh Chauhan and ors (2010) 4 SCC 290;
iv. Order, dt. 21.06.2017, of Hon'ble Madras High Court, in WP No. 8193 of 2017, in the case of Union of India, rep by Government of Puducherry Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal and anr; v. Order, dt. 06.11.2003, of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4100 of 1998, in the case of P. N. Premachandran Vs. State of Kerala and ors (2004) 1 SCC 245;
vi. Order, dt. 30.09.1998, of CAT-Hyderabad Bench, in OA No. 698/1996, in the case of S.Sambaiah and anr Vs. Postmaster General, Hyderabad Region and ors;11 OA No. 741/2013
vii. Order, dt. 07.03.2012, of CAT-Principal Bench, in OA No. 280/2008 and batch, in the case of Y.S.Chaudhary and ors Vs. Union of India, through its Secretary, Railway Board, New Delhi and ors;
viii. Order, dt. 03.05.2012, of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in WP(C) No. 561/2003, in the case of V.K.Jain Vs. Union of India and ors., ix. Order, dt. 02.09.1996, of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 12089 of 1996, in the case of Union of India Vs. Mohan Singh Rathore and anr., x. Order, dt. 20.12.2023, of this Bench, in OA No. 1378/2016, in the case of P. Annamalai Vs. Union of India, rep by Secretary to Government, DPAR, Puducherry and ors.
9.1. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents has argued that that the promotions of Group 'B' officers of Zonal Railways to Group 'A'/Senior Scale are regulated by the guidelines contained in DOP&T O.M. No.22011/5/86-Estt.(D), dated 10.04.1989. As per para 17.11 of these guidelines regarding 'date from which promotions are to be treated as regular', it is stated that, in cases where UPSC's approval is also required, the date of UPSC's letter, communicating its approval or the date of actual promotion of the officer, whichever is later, should be reckoned as the date of regular promotion of the officer.
9.2. The applicant was recommended against one of the UR vacancies of 2010-11, but his promotion orders could not be issued in terms of 12 OA No. 741/2013 instructions contained in DOP&T O.M., dated 12.10.1998, as he had ceased to be in service as on the date of effect of the DPC recommendations, ie., 10.05.2012, due to his retirement on superannuation on 30.04.2012. Since the applicant was not promoted to Group "A"/Senior Scale on regular basis, hence his demand for further promotion to the Junior Administrative Grade is not tenable.
9.3. For the Miscellaneous Cadres of the Indian Railways, which includes the Law Department to which the applicant belongs, officers become eligible for consideration for regular promotion to the Junior Administrative Grade on completion of 5 years of regular service in Group 'A'. It is also submitted that Group 'A' service, in respect of officers belonging to these Miscellaneous Cadres, begins from the date of promotion to the Senior Scale after regular promotion through the UPSC. However, the Ministry of Railways have also decided that officers belonging to the Miscellaneous Cadres of the Indian Railways regularly promoted to Group 'A' Senior Scale through the UPSC, would be considered for ad-hoc promotion to the Junior Administrative Grade, on completion of 3 years of regular service in Group 'A' Senior Scale, subject to availability of vacancies and also subject to their being found fit for the same. This is to be done by the General Managers of the Zonal Railways, etc. Since the applicant was never promoted to Group 'A' Senior Scale on a regular basis, the question of his promotion to the 13 OA No. 741/2013 Junior Administrative Grade on ad-hoc basis or on regular basis does not arise.
9.4. As per the extant instructions contained in DoP&T OM, dated 12.10.1998, if eligible employees who were within the zone of consideration for the relevant year(s) but are not actually in service when the DPC is being held, may also be included in the panels, but such retired officials would have no right for actual promotion.
9.5. He argued that similar relief was sought for by one Shri Bhagwan Singh, Retired SME (Coaching), Northern Railway in OA No.3751/2014 before the Principal Bench of CAT. In the said OA, Shri. Bhagwan Singh had sought promotion from Group "B' to Group 'A'/Junior Scale of the Indian Railway Service of Mechanical Engineers (IRSME), in the panel for the year 2010-11. Shri. Bhagwan Singh was also empanelled by the DPC against a UR vacancy of 2010-11, but he had no right for actual promotion having already retired from service on 31.08.2012. Therefore, his name was not included in the orders for promotion of the empanelled officers, issued vide notification, dated 13.03.2013. ΟΑ No.3751/2014, filed by Shri. Bhagwan Singh was dismissed by the Principal Bench vide order, dated 31.10.2019.
10. Learned counsel for respondents has relied upon the following judgments in support of his arguments :-
14 OA No. 741/2013
i. Order, dt. 30.05.2011, of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) Nos. 2020/2011, 1353/2011 and 2855/2011 in the case of Union of India and anr. Vs. Y.S.Choudhary and ors;
ii. Order, dt. 26.10.1989, of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4494 of 1989 in the case of Union of India and ors Vs. K.K.Vadera and ors 1989 SCC Supl. (2) 625;
iii. Order, dt. 31.03.2008, of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8058 of 2001 in the case of Nirmal Chandra Sinha Vs. Union of India and ors;
iv. Order, dt. 31.10.2019, of the CAT-Principal Bench in OA No. 3751/2014, in the case of Bhagwan Singh Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Railways, through Chairman, Railway Board, New Delhi and ors.
11. The crux of the matter, as seen from the submissions of both the parties, is that the applicant was eligible and was recommended for promotion against one of the UR vacancies for the year 2010-11.
12. The Railway Board had taken up the matter of delay in conducting DPC with the DoPT as far back as 01.07.2004. Proposals had been sent to the UPSC on 17.01.2012, 31.01.2012 and 14.02.2012 for filling up of vacancies of Law Officer in Group 'A'/ Senior Scale for the vacancy years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. The name of the applicant was included in 15 OA No. 741/2013 all the three lists of eligible officers. UPSC had returned the same on various grounds and the revised proposal was also submitted on 01.03.2012 to the UPSC. The DPC meeting, scheduled for 30.04.2012, got shifted to 04.05.2012 and the UPSC letter, forwarding the DPC recommendations, was sent on 10.05.2012. The promotion, that was due to him as per eligibility, remained elusive, as the applicant retired on superannuation on 30.04.2012.
13. The applicant was already promoted to officiate to Senior Scale on ad hoc basis, vide order, dt. 28.06.2005.
14. The Govt. of India has laid down clear procedure for conducting DPC as early as 08.09.1998, prescribing a clear time table for completing the different stages, but in the present case, panels for 3 years are found to have been held by delaying the promotion. Failure to follow the DoPT guidelines, dated 08.09.1998, ultimately resulted in denial of promotion to the applicant.
15. As per the DoP&T instructions issued for consideration of retired employees for promotion, vide OM No. 22011/4/98-Estt(D), dated 12-10- 1998, it is clear that "it would not be in order if eligible employees, who were within the zone of consideration for the relevant year(s) but are not actually in service when the DPC is being held, are not considered while preparing year-wise zone of consideration/panel and, consequently, their juniors are considered (in their places), who would not have been in the zone of consideration, if the DPC(s) had been held in time. This is considered 16 OA No. 741/2013 imperative to identify the correct zone of consideration for relevant year(s). Names of the retired officials may also be included in the panel. Such retired officials would, however have no right for actual promotion."
16. Relevant portions of DoPT OM, No. F. No. 22011/3/2013-Estt. (D), dt. 15.11.2018, are quoted below :-
"OFFICE MEMORANDUM Sub: Promotion of Government servants found fit by review DPC after retirement -- procedure and guidelines to be followed The undersigned is directed to invite reference to this Department's OM of even number dated 25.1.2016 which deals with the grant of notional promotion to a Government servant exonerated in a disciplinary proceedings after retirement. However, the cases of Government servants who are found fit by review DPC after their retirement on account of revision of seniority list of the feeder cadre, upgradation of below benchmark APARs etc. are not covered under the said OM. These cases have now been examined and it has been decided to lay down procedure as narrated in subsequent paragraphs for dealing with such cases.
2 A Government servant who is not recommended in the panel by the original / supplementary DPC but later on is recommended in the panel by a review DPC but has since retired may be given the benefit of notional promotion w.e. f. the date of promotion of his immediate junior in the reviewed panel and fixation of notional pay subject to the fulfillment of the following conditions:17 OA No. 741/2013
(I) That the officer who is immediate junior to the retired Government servant assumed charge of the higher post on or before the date of superannuation of the retired Government servant.
(ii) That the said retired Government servant was clear from vigilance angle on the date of promotion of his immediate junior.
(iii) A retired Government servant who is considered for notional promotion from the date of promotion of his immediate junior on the recommendation of a review DPC would also be entitled to fixation of pension on the basis of such notional pay.
(IV) The notional promotion, notional pay fixation and revision of pension shall be further subject to extant rules on promotion, pay fixation and CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, Actual increase in pension shall be given only from the date of approval of reviewed panel by the competent authority. No arrears shall be paid.
3.The provisions contained in this Office Memorandum shall become operational from the date of issue of this Office Memorandum. Past cases settled in accordance with the earlier provision shall not be reopened."
17. The Honble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) 4605/2024, (MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ANR versus SHRI JAGMINDER SINGH & ANR.) in a similar case, vide order, dt. 28.03.2024, held as under :
"10.In the light of the aforesaid, we are unable to accept the petitioners' plea that it would be in the discretion of the employer to consider or not to consider cases of superannuated employees. Such 18 OA No. 741/2013 an interpretation would, in our view, indeed lead to arbitrariness and cannot be permitted. We, therefore, have no hesitation in rejecting the petitioners' plea that since the respondents had already superannuated before the DPC was convened, their names were rightly left out of consideration by the DPC. We may note, that though the respondents had already superannuated on 29.02.2016, which was before the DPC for grant of SAG was held in August 2016, the said DPC was for consideration of grant of SAG to employees with reference to the vacancies available in 2013, when both the respondents were admittedly in service.
11.Furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to deny that as per the existing guidelines issued by the DoPT, DPCs are required to be held in a timely manner. He concedes that as per the instructions issued by the DoPT, DPC for consideration for promotion against the vacancies of a particular year is required to be held in July of the following year by taking into account the eligibility criteria as applicable in January of the said year. In the present case, even as per the petitioner, the DPC for consideration for grant of SAG against vacancies of 2013, with which we are concerned in the present case was required to be held, if not earlier, at least by July 2014 when both the respondents were in service. The said DPC was, however, convened only in August 2016 after the respondents had superannuated in February 2016. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the respondents could not be deprived of their right to be considered for promotion to SAG against the vacancies of 2013.
12.We also find that while allowing the original application filed by the respondents, the learned Tribunal has relied on the order passed 19 OA No. 741/2013 by this Court in W.P.(C) 598/2014 titled UOI vs. B. K. Singh and Others, wherein also a review DPC was directed to be held in similar circumstances. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not denied that this decision has attained finality. On this ground as well, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order
13.For the aforesaid reasons, we find absolutely no merit in the writ petition, which is, along with all pending applications, accordingly, dismissed. As prayed for, the petitioners are granted six weeks' time to comply with the impugned order."
18. The proposition that promotions will have only prospective effect even where the vacancies relate to earlier year(s) is not being denied here. However, as per the DOPT guidelines, dated 08.09.1998, and reiterated in O.Ms, dated 14.11.2014, and 23.04.2015, the DPC in the present case should have been held on time and the approved list ought to have been released before 31.03.2011. But the respondents have conducted the DPC only on 04.05.2012, i.e., more than a year behind the mandated schedule and, as a result, in spite of availability of clear regular vacancies and the applicant, being well within the zone of consideration, he could not be given regular promotion to the Sr. Scale even though he was officiating in the post. 19.1. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the respondents are directed to promote the applicant to Group A/Senior Scale, on notional basis, if he is otherwise eligible, as per rules, from the date of regular promotion of his immediate junior and, further, to consider him for promotion, to the Junior 20 OA No. 741/2013 Administrative Grade, as per the policy of Ministry of Railways, on notional basis, and to re-fix his pay and other retirement benefits, accordingly. 19.2. The above exercise shall be completed within four months from the date of the receipt of a certified copy of this order.
19.3. The OA is disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, disposed of. No costs.
(M.Swaminathan) (Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi)
Member (J) Member (A)
05.07.2024
SKSI