Allahabad High Court
Union Of India And 4 Others vs Dr. Santosh Kumar Tiwari And Another on 3 February, 2021
Bench: Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14512 of 2020 Petitioner :- Union Of India And 4 Others Respondent :- Dr. Santosh Kumar Tiwari And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Purnendu Kumar Singh,A.S.G.I. Counsel for Respondent :- Ram Ji Singh Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,J.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the judgment dated 07.03.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. By the impugned judgment, the original application preferred by the non-petitioners/respondents was decided. The review application preferred by the respondent No.2 was partly allowed thereupon by the order dated 10.08.2020. The order aforesaid has been challenged by the Union of India.
It is a case where the respondent No.1 was initially appointed on the post of Senior Scientific Officer Grade-I by way of direct recruitment. It was as per Rules of 2000 existing till 2006. The post of Senior Scientific Officer Grade-I was to be filled 50% by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment before the amendment. The respondent No.2 was then promoted to post of Principal Scientific Officer, (Junior Administrative Grade) pay band-3 in the year 2014. As per the statement of both the counsel, the petitioner was then allowed the pay-scale of the post of Principal Scientific Officer (Junior Administrative Grade, Non Functional Selection Grade) pay band-4 w.e.f. 1st July, 2016.
The respondent is getting the pay-scale of the post of Principal Scientific Officer (Junior Administrative Grade Non Functional) since then. The respondent No.1 claimed his promotion to the post of Principal Scientific Officer (Junior Administrative Grade, Non Functional) but was not allowed in absence of completion of 14 years of service on the post of Principal Scientific Officer (Junior Administrative Grade). The Tribunal found that by virtue of the amendment made in November, 2014, the period of 14 years was substituted by 9 years and accordingly the respondent No.1 was entitle for consideration of his case to the post of Principal Scientific Officer (Junior Administrative Grade, Non Functional), the pay-scale of which was allowed to the non-petitioner herein since 1st July, 2016.
A direction was given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for his promotion to the post of Principal Scientific Officer (Junior Administrative Grade Non Functional).
Learned counsel appearing for Union of India and others submitted that functional post can be filed only after adhering to the notification dated 29.01.2014 and accordingly, one can be promoted only on the recommendation of the Placement Committee constituted for that purpose.
The argument aforesaid has been raised in ignorance of the fact that the petitioner is not asking for promotion against the functional post rather on the non-functional post given at Item No.3 of Schedule-1 under Rule, 2(e), 2(g), 3, 4, 5 & 7 of the Rules.
In the light of the aforesaid, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal on review application as otherwise the post fell vacant on 02.08.2019. For clarity, the promotion of the petitioner would initially on the post of Principal Scientific Officer (Junior Administrative Grade Non Functional) and for functional post, the Rules of 2014 introduced on 28.01.2014 would apply.
With the aforesaid clarification this petition is disposed of without causing interference in the impugned order.
Order Date :- 3.2.2021 piyush