Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mohinder Singh vs Govt. Of Nctd on 1 February, 2024
1
OA No.267/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
OA No.267/2019
Order reserved on 29.01.2024
Order pronounced on 01.02.2024
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjit More, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Anand Mathur, Member (A)
Sh. Mohinder Singh
Age 68½ years (Group A)
S/o Late Sh. Udey Chand
R/o 5 Harijan Colony
Ashok Vihar, Delhi-110052.
....Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. O.P. Gehlot)
VERSUS
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi through its Chief Secretary
Delhi Govt. Secretariat
7th Level, B-Wing, I.P. Estate
New Delhi-110013.
2. Union of India
Through its Joint Secretary (Union Territory)
M/o Home Affairs, Govt. of India
North Block, Central Secretariat
New Delhi-110001.
.... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Gyanendra Singh)
ORDER
Per Hon'ble Mr. Anand Mathur, Member (A).
The present OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:-
"(a) Grant of promotion in the selection grade in DANICS to the applicant in the erstwhile scale of Rs.10,000-15200 2 OA No.267/2019 w.e.f. the date it has been granted to his juniors viz Radhey Shyam, G.L. Meena, Peter Bara etc. as in Respondents order dated 10.9.2012 (A/12) and also grant consequential benefits.
(b) Payment of cost by Respondents for prolonging litigation, causing mental agony and expenses to the applicant."
2. The brief facts as mentioned in the OA and argued by learned counsel for the applicant are that the applicant earlier approached this Tribunal in OA No.1692/2011 seeking appointment to the entry grade of DANICS as per approved/recommended panel of the year 2001. The said OA was disposed of by this Tribunal vide Order dated 13.12.2013 giving the following directions:-
"16. Now we come to the last issue as to what relief can be extended to the applicant. We hold the error of showing the applicant retired in the year 2001 as illegal and downright depreciable. This is the root cause of all mistakes subsequent thereto. Had this error not been made, the subsequent denials to the applicant would not have taken place. We accordingly find merit in the OA and dispose the same with the following directions:-
(i) As per the recommendations of the DPC for the year 2001, the date of appointment of the appointment to the Entry Grade of DANICS be considered as 2001.
(ii) All other consequential benefits arising from the above shall be extended to the applicant as per the rules within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iii) The applicant is paid a token costs of Rs.15,000/-
in view of gross injustice suffered by him." 3 OA No.267/2019
3. This was contested by the respondents by filing RA No.98/2014 which was dismissed by this Tribunal being devoid of merit vide Order dated 23.12.2014. Thereafter, the respondents filed Writ Petition(C) No.5196/2015, CM No.9442/2015 which was also dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court vide judgment dated 14.03.2016.
4. Thereafter, the respondents complied with the directions passed by this Tribunal in the OA No.1692/2011 treating the applicant's appointment to the entry grade of DANICS as per approved/recommended panel for the year 2001. Based on this, in the revised seniority list the applicant stands senior to Shri Radhey Shyam, Shri G.L. Meena, Shri Peter Bara etc. Two out of them i.e. Shri Radhey Shyam and Shri G.L. Meena have been given Selection Grade in DANICS in the scale of pay of Rs.15600-39100 (Grade Pay Rs.6600/-) retrospectively w.e.f. 01.07.2010 vide notification dated 10.09.2012.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant also relied upon DOP&T's OM dated 15.11.2018 on the issue of "Promotion of Government servants found fit by review DPC after 4 OA No.267/2019 retirement-Procedure and guidelines to be followed". The relevant portion of which reads as under:-
"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:
(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."
6. Learned counsel for the applicant, therefore, pleads that since this is a non functional promotion and that is why the date of effect of the promotion is with retrospective effect and it was incumbent upon the respondents to grant the same benefit to the applicant on a notional basis which would have had a direct bearing on the pension and other dues of the applicant. 5 OA No.267/2019
7. Per contra the stand adopted by learned counsel for the respondents boils down to the fact that when the aforementioned promotion orders were issued i.e. on 10.09.2012, the applicant had already retired on 31.07.2010. Moreover, the benefit of antedating his entry into DANICS which was revised to the year 2001 based on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court have been after the issuance of the promotion order of his juniors i.e. 10.09.2012. Therefore, at the time of consideration of promotion, the applicant stood retired and hence his name was rightly not considered by the DPC.
8. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
9. In the conspectus of the facts brought out above, we find that there is substance in the argument put forth by the learned counsel for the applicant inasmuch as having revised the date of entry into DANICS of the applicant, the respondents were duty bound to hold a review DPC and consider the claim of the applicant as per his revised seniority wherein he ranks senior to Shri Radhey Shyam and Shri G.D. Meena. It is an undisputed fact that, as on 6 OA No.267/2019 date, the applicant is senior to the aforesaid officials, therefore, the respondents are bound to consider the claim of the applicant by holding a review DPC. Moreover, since this is a non-functional promotion which has been given to his juniors in 2012 with effect from a retrospective date i.e. 1.7.2010 when the applicant was in service, the DOP&T rules(supra), do provide for extending the benefit of such a promotion even to retired employees.
10. We, accordingly, dispose of the present OA with the following directions to the respondents:-
(i) To hold a review DPC and consider the suitability of the applicant for giving him the benefit of Selection Grade of DANICS w.e.f. 01.07.2010 at par with his juniors i.e. Shri Radhey Shyam and Shri G.L. Meena;
(ii) In case the applicant is found to be fit for grant of Selection Grade w.e.f. 01.07.2010, he shall be given notional promotion from that date and his pay/pension/pensionary benefits would be revised accordingly in terms of DOP&T's OM dated 15.11.2018 referred to, in para 5 supra;7 OA No.267/2019
(iii) The aforementioned exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
11. No order as to costs.
(Anand Mathur) (Justice Ranjit More) Member (A) Chairman /vb/