Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Chuni Lal Raina vs D/O Forests Ut Of Jammu & Kashmir on 18 December, 2025
:: 1 :: TA 6510/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Transfer Application No. 6510/2021
Reserved on: - 28/07/2025
Pronounced on: - 18.12.2025
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
Between,
Chuni Lal Raina, Age 70 years
S/o Sh. Nanak Chand
R/o Gadigarh Tehsil and District Jammu.
...Applicant
(Advocate: - Mr. Rahul Pant, Sr. Adv.)
-Versus-
1. State of J&K through Commissioner/Secretary to Government
Forest Department, Jammu and Kashmir Government Civil
Secretariat, Jammu.
2. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
Forest Department Van Bhawan Jammu.
3. Managing Director J&K State Forests
Corporation Jammu.
...Respondents
(Advocate:- Mr. Sudesh Magotra, Ld. AAG)
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR :: 2 :: TA 6510/2021
1. The SWP/WPC/2370/2016 was transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No. 6510/2021 by the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon'ble High Court seeking following relief: -
a) Writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari quashing the Forest Order No.60 of 2016 dated 28.03.2016;
b) Writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus commanding the Respondent to promote the petitioner as Chauffeur w.e.f. 25.01.1996 (i.e. earliest of the dates from which Junior of the petitioner have been so promoted, along with consequential benefits;
c) Writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus commanding the Respondent to place the petitioner in the pay Grade of Senior Driver from the date his Junior was promoted;
d) Writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus commanding the Respondent to re-fix the pensionery benefits of the petitioner by taking into account the retrospective grant of promotion to the petitioner against the post of Chauffeur;
e) Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents along with cost.
3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioners in their pleadings are as follows: -
i) That the petitioner was appointed as a 'Cleaner' on 30.07.1975 in the erstwhile Government Lumbering Undertaking of the Forest Department of the Government of the State, which was a centralized unit working as a wing of the Forest Department for the purposes of extraction and sale of timber. Petitioner, thereafter, was promoted as Junior Grade Driver on 10.07.1978.
ii) That in the year 1979 the Government constituted a Corporation known as the J&K State Forest Corporation where after the Government Lumbering Undertaking was merged into the said Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR :: 3 :: TA 6510/2021 Corporation and the functions of the erstwhile Government Lumbering Undertaking of extraction and sale of timber were also entrusted to the newly created Corporation. It may be relevant to state here that the aforesaid newly created Corporation i.e. J&K State Forest Corporation was initially made functional by deputation of the government employees then working in the Government Lumbering Undertaking and the petitioner being one amongst such employees was also deputed to work in the J&K State Forest Corporation. Subsequently, however, all such deputed employees were given a choice either to opt for the services of the J&K State Forest Corporation or to remain government employees in the Forest Department and many employees of the erstwhile Government Lumbering Undertaking opted for the services of the Corporation. Petitioner, however, did not opt for the services of the J&K State Forest Corporation and instead chose to be a government employee on the services of the Forest Department. Apart from the petitioner there were certain other employees who did not opt for services of the J&K State Forest Corporation and similarly chose to serve in the Forest Department of the State.
iii) That despite having chosen not to be absorbed in the J&K State Forest Corporation and to instead remain on the service of the Forest Department, the petitioner and other similarly situated employees of erstwhile Government Lumbering Undertaking were made to continue to work on deputation in the J&K State Forest Corporation on the ground that a final decision as to their position in the Forest Department is to be taken before their absorption in the Forest Department. However, no such decision was taken for almost a decade and half and the aforesaid arrangement continued without formally absorbing the petitioner and other similarly situated in the Forest Department. Although, in the meanwhile, the Forest Department continued to make recruitment to the posts of Drivers in the department, yet no action for formal absorption of the petitioner and others was taken.
iv) That it was only in the year 1993 that the Government in the Forest Department woke up to realize the plight of the erstwhile employees of the Government Lumbering Undertaking not having opted for the services of the J&K State Forest Corporation, whose status as government employees although had come to be recognized but who had not been granted any promotion for the last almost a decade and a half. Eventually after a threadbare discussion and after taking up the matter with the Finance Department, it was decided by the Forest Department to give proforma promotions to such employees from the appropriate date Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR :: 4 :: TA 6510/2021 and necessary instructions in this regard were given by the office of Respondent No.1 to the Respondent No.2 vide Communication No.FST/304-80/2 13 dated 21.05.1993, copy whereof is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-A for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. It may be relevant to state here that the Respondent No.1 had vide aforesaid communication dated 21.05.1993 issued directions to the Respondent No.2 to order proforma promotions of the erstwhile Government Lumbering Undertaking employees from the appropriate date as per the seniority list prepared by the latter. It was further provided that such employees will continue to be on deputation with the J&K State Forest Corporation till they are gradually absorbed by the parent department i.e. the Forest Department.
v) That consequent upon the receipt of aforesaid communication dated 21.05.1993, the Respondent No.2 vide Forest Order No.117 of 1993 dated 30.06.1993 promoted the petitioner as Senior Grade Driver w.e.f. 01.12.1987. Petitioner is not in possession of the aforesaid order dated 30.06.1993, however, the same stands duly recorded in the Service Book of the petitioner, copy of relevant extract whereof is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-B for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.
vi) That after the retrospective promotion of the petitioner in the year 1993 w.e.f. 01.12.1987, the Government promulgated SRO 28 of 1996 dated 25.01.1996 laying down the pay structure of Driver and it was provided as under:
The pay structure of Drivers in the respective Departmental cadre shall be as under:
i. Drivers (Grade II) Rs.950-1500 - 50% of the total number of posts of Drivers.
ii. Drivers (Grade 1) Rs.1200-2040 - 30% of the total number of posts of drivers.
iii. Chauffeurs Rs.1640-2900 - 20% of the total number of posts of the drivers.
Note- Drivers(Grade II) on completion of minimum 5 years Service in the pay scale of 950-1500 shall be eligible for promotion as Drivers (Grade I) in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 subject to availability of posts. However, in case of such of the Drivers as have been appointed initially in the pay scale Rs.800-1150 as per provisions of sub-clause (e) (i) above, now upgraded in Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR :: 5 :: TA 6510/2021 the pay scale of Rs.950-1500, the period of service rendered by them in the pay scale of 800-1150 shall count for computation of minimum service of five years for purposes of their promotion as Drivers (Grade I) in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040. Drivers Grade (II) on completion of minimum five years service in the pay scale of 1200-2040 shall be eligible for promotion as 'Chauffeurs' in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 subject to the availability of posts."
vii) The petitioner, who had completed five years of service as Senior Grade Driver in the year 1992 also, therefore, became eligible for promotion as Chauffeur as per the above said rule promulgated vide SRO 28 of 1996. The petitioner, however, was not granted such promotion as Chauffeur on the plea that the same would be granted in accordance with his seniority.
vii) A. That it is pertinent to mention here that one of the colleague of the petitioner namely Sh. Om Prakash who was appointed on 12.02.1987 and therefore was junior to the petitioner, was promoted to the post of Senior Driver on 01.11.1990 whereas the petitioner who was appointed as a Cleaner on 30.07.1975 and thereafter promoted as Junior Grade Driver on 10.07.1978 promoted to the post of Senior Grade Driver on 01.12.1987 i.e. three years before the petitioner. Not only this, even Sh. Om Prakash was promoted by the respondents to the post of Chauffeur on 25.01.1996 without promoting the petitioner to the post of Chauffeur being senior to Sh. Om Prakash by following pick and choose policy. Copy of Seniority List of Senior Drivers as on 25.01.1996 and tentative seniority list of Chauffeurs as on 15.06.2004 is enclosed herewith as Annexure-D and E for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. Another colleague of the petitioner namely Sh. Swami Raj who was appointed on 01.04.1980 and junior to the petitioner, was also promoted as Senior Grade Driver as on 04.02.1981 i.e. prior to the petitioner's promotion as Senior Grade Driver by following pick and choose policy. Copy of seniority list of Senior Grade Drivers as on 01.04.2001 is enclosed herewith as Annexure-B1 for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.
vii)B. From bare perusal of the abovementioned Seniority lists, it can be seen that though both the above-mentioned two colleagues of the petitioner namely Sh. Om Parkash and Sh. Swami Raj were appointed by the Respondents after the appointment of the petitioner and were junior to petitioner then also they were promoted to the posts of Senior Driver and Chauffeur by the Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR :: 6 :: TA 6510/2021 respondents leaving behind the petitioner. It is understandable as to how the Respondents have picked up the juniors of the petitioner first in order of seniority for making promotion to the post of Chauffeurs despite the fact that they were appointed later and there were no reasons with the respondents for not granting similar treatment to the petitioner.
viii) That it may be relevant to state here that the petitioner, by very nature of the duties, which were being performed by him while being on deputation in the J&K State Forest Corporation, never had access to the records pertaining to the seniority of his other colleagues posted in the Forest Department and was also cut off from the said colleagues posted in the Forest Department in view of the fact that owing to exigencies of duties and the nature of work entrusted to him, petitioner was always on the move mostly in inaccessible remote areas of the forests. Petitioner, therefore, all along believed that his promotion as Senior Grade Driver in the Forest Department w.e.f. 01.12.1987 was ordered keeping in view his seniority in light of the instructions issued to the Respondent No.2 vide communication dated 21.05.1993. However, it was only in the year 2005 after two of the colleagues of the petitioner namely S/Sh. Darshan Singh and Ashok Kumar, who were also erstwhile Government Lumbering Undertaking employees and were similarly working on deputation in the J&K State Forest Corporation, got repatriated and formally posted in the Forest Department that the petitioner came to know that many juniors of the petitioner had been granted promotion as Chauffeurs without first considering the petitioner for such promotion. Petitioner, consequently represented before the Respondent No.2 for promoting him as Chauffeur w.e.f. the date his juniors had been so promoted. Copy of the representation dated 22.02.2006 preferred by the petitioner in this regard is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-C for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.
It may also be relevant to state here that even amongst the petitioner and his above named two colleagues i.e. S/Sh. Darshan Singh and Ashok Kumar, all of whom were promoted as Senior Grade Drivers w.e.f. 01.12.1987, petitioner was senior having been promoted as Junior Grade Driver on 10.07.1978 as against the above said persons, who were so promoted on 15.02.1980 and 01.04.1980 respectively. It is not understandable as to how and for what reasons the aforesaid two persons were picked up first in order for repatriation and formal posting in the Forest Department while leaving out the petitioner. Petitioner, however, did not join Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR :: 7 :: TA 6510/2021 issue on this score, inasmuch as, the aforesaid persons were similarly situated as the petitioner and even the petitioner was all along assured for his formal absorption in similar manner with a further assurance that the same would have no bearing on his seniority as fixed pursuant to communication dated 21.05.1993 (Annexure-A).
That similar representations, as made by the petitioner, were also preferred by the aforesaid two colleagues of the petitioner, who were also senior to a number of Drivers of the Forest Department, who had been granted promotion as Chauffeurs without first considering their cases for such promotion.
However, when no action on the said representation was taken, the petitioner along with the aforesaid two persons viz. S/Sh. Darshan Singh and Ashok Kumar filed a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court inter alia praying for grant of promotion as Chauffeurs w.e.f. 25.01.1996 i.e. earliest of the dates from which their juniors were so promoted, which writ petition came to be registered as SWP No.1140 of 2006 titled Chuni Lal Raina and Others Vs. State of J&K and Others. The writ petitioners, along with the aforesaid writ petition, also prepared and annexed a statement showing their comparative seniority with their juniors who had been granted promotion as Chauffeurs, all of whom were arrayed as party-respondents in the said writ petition. Copy of the said statement is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-D for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. A tentative seniority list of Chauffeurs issued as on 15.06.2004 containing the names of the aforesaid juniors of the petitioner (Respondents No.4 to 7 in SWP No.1140 of 2006) was also annexed with the said writ petition and, for facility of reference, a copy of the same is also being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-E for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.
ix) That even after filing of the writ petition, no steps were taken either to formally repatriate and post the petitioner in his parent department i.e. the Forest Department or to grant him promotion as Chauffeur w.e.f. the date his juniors in the department had been so promoted and the petitioner, in the meanwhile, retired from service on 31.08.2006 while awaiting redressal of his grievance with regard to his promotion as also awaiting his formal posting in the Forest Department.
x) That it was only after the retirement of the petitioner that an amalgamated seniority list of the erstwhile Government Lumbering Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR :: 8 :: TA 6510/2021 Undertaking borne Drivers and the seniority of Drivers posted in the Forest Department was made public by the respondent- department in the year 2007. It may be relevant to state here that the earlier similar seniority list as was directed to be prepared by the Respondent No.2 pursuant to communication dated 21.05.1993 (Annexure-A) based upon which the promotion as Senior Grade Driver was granted to the petitioner and other similarly situated never saw light of the day and was not made public for the reasons best known to the respondents.
Be that as it may be, the aforesaid two colleagues of the petitioner namely S/Sh. Darshan Singh and Ashok Kumar, who were co-petitioners with him in SWP No.1140 of 2006, were granted promotion as Chauffeurs during the pendency of the writ petition w.e.f. 26.02.2009 and 17.01.2011 respectively. Petitioner, however, was not granted such promotion even notionally despite being senior to the aforesaid two persons also apart from being senior to the private respondents arrayed in SWP No.1140 of 2006.
xi) That in response to the writ petition an absolutely illegal plea was taken by the respondents so as to justify their inaction in the matter to the effect that the seniority of the employees of the erstwhile Government Lumbering Undertaking was being maintained separately in a seniority list of Ex. Government Lumbering Undertaking employees and that promotions to them as Junior Grade Drivers and Senior Grade Drivers were granted as per SRO 28 of 1996. It was, further, contended that such Ex. Government Lumbering Undertaking Drivers which, numbered 93, were divided into 47 Junior Grade Drivers, 32 Senior Grade Drivers and 18 Chauffeurs as per the ratio prescribed in SRO 28 of 1996 and that promotions to the petitioners as Junior Grade Drivers and Senior Grade Drivers were granted as per SRO 28 of 1996. It was also averred by the respondents that while all the posts of Junior Grade Drivers and Senior Grade Drivers were occupied, 05 posts of Chauffeurs were available to be filled up as per seniority. The aforesaid stand of the respondents was duly rebutted by filing a rejoinder affidavit. The falsity of the stand of the respondents would be manifest from the fact that the promotion of the petitioner and his co-petitioners in SWP No.1140 of 2006 both as Junior Grade Driver and Senior Grade Driver were made much before the promulgation of SRO 28 of 1996 and as such the contention of the respondents that they were granted promotions as Junior and Senior Grade Drivers as per SRO 28 of 1996 in accordance with the ratio fixed there under is absolutely misconceived. It was further urged in rebuttal to the stand of the Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR :: 9 :: TA 6510/2021 respondents that there was no reason or occasion for maintenance of a separate seniority list by referring to the petitioner and other similarly situated as erstwhile Government Lumbering Undertaking employees in view of the fact that not only their status of being government employees was duly recognized but even promotions were granted to them by the Respondent No.2 on the directions of Respondent No.1 while they continued on deputation pending their formal posting in their parent department i.e. the Forest Department. Once the Government Lumbering Undertaking ceased to exist with its merger with the J&K State Forest Corporation and the status of the petitioner and others recognized as employees of the forest department on deputation to the Corporation, they could no longer be treated alien to their parent department which even granted promotions in their favour. Another aspect of the matter which was raised in the writ petition and was duly borne out from the reply of the respondents was that many juniors of the petitioner, even amongst Ex. Government Lumbering Undertaking employees had been made Junior Grade Drivers and Senior Grade Drivers prior to them.
xii)That the aforesaid writ petition filed by the petitioner along with two others was finally considered by this Hon'ble Court and while observing that in view of the stand taken by the respondents, there is no reason to deny promotion to the petitioners that otherwise is due to them having regard to their seniority and performance, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to accord consideration to petitioners' promotion as Senior Drivers and Chauffeurs having regard to their seniority w.e.f. the date such promotions have been given to their junior colleagues-private respondents in the writ petition. The respondents were granted a time period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order to take a decision in the matter. A copy of the judgment dated 10.09.2013 passed in SWP No.1140 of 2006 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-F for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.
xiii) That the non-implementation of the judgment dated 10.09.2013 passed by this Hon'ble Court in SWP No.1140 of 2006 by the respondents led the petitioners therein to file a petition seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents, which came to be registered as Contempt (SWP) No.410 of 2015 titled Chuni Lal Raina and Others Vs. A. K. Singh. Even the filing of the contempt petition did not seem to move the respondents to act in the matter. The Hon'ble Court taking serious note of the non Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR :: 10 :: TA 6510/2021 filing of statement of facts in the aforesaid contempt petition directed personal presence of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests vide its order dated 01.04.2016, copy whereof is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-G for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. This infuriated the respondents and the infuriation was vented out in form of Forest Order No.60 of 2016 dated 28.03.2016 whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. Copy of the Forest Order No.60 of 2016 dated 28.03.2016 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-H for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.
xiv) That the aforesaid order of rejection dated 28.03.2016 was placed on record by the respondents before this Hon'ble Court in the aforesaid contempt petition where after the contempt petition was disposed of by the Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 22.08.2016, granting liberty to petitioners therein to challenge the order dated 28.03.2016. Copy of the order dated 22.08.2016 passed in the above said contempt petition is annexed herewith and marked Annexure-J for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.
xv) That the petitioner is aggrieved of the Forest Order No.60 of 2016 dated 28.03.2016 whereby the claim of the petitioner inter alia for promotion to the post Chauffeur, has been rejected.
4. The respondents have filed their reply statement/objection, wherein they have averred as follows: -
That the petitioner was initially appointed as Cleaner in the then Government Lumbering Undertaking (in short GLU) which was one of the sister concerns of the Forest Department. In the year 1979, the Government constituted a Corporation called State Forest Corporation and the said GLU was merged in the State Forest Corporation and the employees of erstwhile GLU were given option, either to opt for the services of the State Forest Corporation or continue to be GLU employees. It is essential to state here that many employees opted for the State Forest Corporation, as such, their services are being governed by the the Forest Corporation Rules and Regulations.
That some of the employees, including the petitioner, did not opt for the services of the SFC, as such, their cadre management and seniority has been maintained separately as EX-GLU employees as the said employees were appointed in GLU by the management of the GLU. It is essential to state here that the Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR :: 11 :: TA 6510/2021 persons who did not opt for SFC are being treated Government employees and their services, as such, are pensionable. That the petitioner did not opt for the SFC, as such, he continued to be treated as Government employee of EX-GLU and his seniority is being maintained separately as the employee of Ex- GLU. Further, it is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner continued to work in the State Forest Corporation for the reasons of availability of work of truck drivers in the SFC. Seniority lists maintained for erstwhile Copies of the chauffeurs/Drivers of the GLU are collectively annexed as Anexure-R1 to these objections. That the petitioner has been promoted as senior driver by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests as per SRO-28 which pertains to the promotion of Drivers from one scale to another scale. As per SRO-28, ratio of posts of Drivers in various categories is to be maintained as under:-
Driver Grade-1 50% of total No. of posts of Drivers.
Driver Grade-II 30% of total No. of posts of Drivers.
Chauffeurs 20% of total No. of posts of Driver.
The promotion to the petitioner has been made strictly as per the separate inter seniority maintained by the State Forest Corporation. The SFC was maintaining the seniority of the petitioner separately, as such, the present Writ petition is misconceived and baseless and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that GLU borne Drivers of Kashmir province filed Writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court at Srinagar bearing No: SWP: 1567/2003 titled Mohammad Ramzan Baba Vs. State & Others. The Hon'ble Court was pleased to dispose of the said petition vide order dated 01.06.2011 with the directions to the respondents to determine the seniority of the of Forest Drivers therein (GLU borne Driver) with the Drivers of Forest Department. It is further submitted that the combined seniority list of GLU borne drivers was also framed alongwith the drivers of Forest Department of Jammu province and was issued by the Chief Conservator of Forests, Jammu in the year 2007 after the petitioner had already retired from the Government service on 31.08.2006. The petitioner continued in the Corporation till his retirement. Therefore, neither his junior was promoted ahead of the petitioner nor there was any post of chauffer available to consider the petitioner for promotion as chauffer retirement i.e. 31.08.2006 till his retirement i.e. 31.08.2006.Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR :: 12 :: TA 6510/2021
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for parties and examining the records, it transpires that the applicant is basically claiming for the notional promotion from the date when some of his juniors were promoted to the post of Sr. Scale Driver and Chauffeur. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that one of the colleagues of the petitioner namely, Sh. Om Prakash who was appointed on 12.02.1987 and therefore, was junior to the petitioner, was promoted to the post of Senior Driver on 01.11.1990, whereas the petitioner who was appointed as a Cleaner on 30.07.1975 and thereafter, promoted as Junior Grade Driver on 10.07.1978, was promoted to the post of Senior Grade Driver on 01.12.1987 i.e., after rendering more than 9 years' service in the Junior Grade. Not only this, even Sh. Om Prakash was promoted by the respondents to the post of Chauffeur on 25.01.1996 without promoting the petitioner despite being senior to Sh. Om Prakash, by following pick and choose policy. Another colleague of the petitioner namely, Sh. Swami Raj who was appointed on 01.04.1980 and junior to the petitioner, was also promoted as Senior Grade Driver as on 04.02.1981 i.e. prior to the petitioner's promotion as Senior Grade Driver again by following pick and choose policy as would be evidenced by Comparative Seniority Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR :: 13 :: TA 6510/2021 List dated 25.01.1996 and Tentative Seniority List of Chauffeur dated 15.06.2004. Thereafter, the respondents have issued the impugned Order dated 28.03.2016 rejecting the claim of the petitioner despite directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court on 10.09.2013 in SWP No. 1140/2006 filed by the petitioner and two of his associates. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant holds water that despite applicant being much senior and having work experience, he was denied promotion to higher grade by the respondents, which was granted to his juniors.
Therefore, it is apparent that the applicant has been outrightly discriminated by such act on the part of the respondents.
Furthermore, it is noted that in the realm of service jurisprudence, seniority is the backbone of promotional avenues. It is the basic determinant of a government servant's right to be considered fairly for higher posts.
Denial of rightful seniority and consequent promotion thereto, has cascading effects upon career advancement and financial entitlements, which has been done in the present case.
7. For the foregoing reasons, this Tribunal is of the view that the petition merits acceptance. The petitioner is entitled to promotion from the date when the juniors were promoted, with all notional promotions and consequential benefits flowing therefrom, including revision of retiral and pensionary entitlements.
Digitally signed by SOURABH KUMAR :: 14 :: TA 6510/20218. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Tribunal finds merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly allowed, with following directions: -
(i) Impugned Forest Order No. 60 of 2016 dated 28.03.2016 is quashed and set aside.
(ii) Respondents are directed to grant notional promotion to the applicant as Chauffeur w.e.f. 25.01.1996 i.e. the date when his junior was promoted.
(ii) Consequential benefits, including notional promotions as well as subsequent promotions and re-fixation of pensionary benefits of the petitioner shall also be accorded to the petitioner taking into account the retrospective grant of notional promotion to him against the post of 'Chauffeur.'
(iii) The petitioner shall also be entitled to all consequential service and retiral benefits, including revision of pensionary entitlements, that flow from such grant of notional promotion.
The arrears, if any, shall be calculated and released within a period of two months.
9. The entire exercise is directed to be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.
10. Accordingly, TA stands allowed. No costs. Pending M.As., if any, also stand disposed of.
(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
/sk/
Digitally signed by
SOURABH KUMAR