Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sulekha Sagar vs M/O Personnel,Public Grievances And ... on 7 April, 2025
Item No. 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.1284/2020
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.1284/ 20200
Reserved on: 07.03.2025
Pronounced on: 07.04.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
1. Ms. Sulekha Sagar, Aged about 59 years),
Director (Gr A), W/o. Shri Manoj Kumar, A
A-72,
Anand Vihar, Delhi-72.
Delhi
2. Shri Dinesh Arora, Aged about 61 years,
Director Retd, S/o. Shri Krishan Arora, rr-10/127,
Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad.
...Applicantss
(By Advocate: Mr. A K Srivastava
Srivastava)
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, D/o.
Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi.
2. The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North
Block, New Delhi.
3. The Secretary, Department of Agriculture,
Cooperation & Farmers Welfare, Krishi Bhawan,
New Delhi.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. G S Virk)
Page 1 of 19
Item No. 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.1284/2020
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):
(J):-
In the present Original Application, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants applicant have prayed for the following relief(s):
"a) to quash the impugned decision.
b) to give promotion along with all consequential benefits of pay fixation, arrears of pay and allowance, w.e.f 1st July, 2016;
c) Any other· order, as may be deemed fit by the Hon'ble TribunaI."
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, the learned cou counsel nsel for the respondents submitted that vide order dated 30.06.2016, the applicants have been accorded the placement in CCS Senior Sele Selection ction Grade (Director) subject to their successful completion of mandatory level 'F' training as per CCS-CTP.
CTP.
2.1 It is not in dispute that the applicants were accorded promotion vide Office Memorandum dated 13.11.2017, wherein the applicants have been assigned ed seniority, respectively, as 53A and 61A. The applicants completed their training on 11.10.2017. 2.2 It is the submission of the counsel for the applicants that the junior to the applicants, one Mr. R K Pandey, who completed training on Page 2 of 19 Item No. 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.1284/2020 01.07.2016, was accorded orded the financial benefit. However, the applicants have been deprived of the same. The seniority loses its meaning unless and until any financial benefits are accorded. 2.3 He further highlighted that a representation was made to that effect by the applicant ant no. 1, i.e., Ms. Sulekha, wherein she submitted as under:
"(ii) It may further be stated that the DoPT had earlier nominated me twice in Level 'F' Training Programme in March 2016 and again in June 2016, but I was not relieved for attending the same due due to administrative reasons and exigencies of work. Thereafter, ISTM did not conduct the Level 'F' Training Programme as per schedule during the period from June 2016 to August 2017.
ISTM arranged the subsequent training programme only in August 2017, for which I was relieved to attend (during 28.8.2017 to 15.9.2017) and has since completed. It proves the fact that had the training been conducted earlier as per schedules of ISTM, I would have surely undergone and completed the training. Thus, as such, I wawass not provided any opportunity to complete the mandatory Level 'F' Training for more than a year, which has resulted in denying me promotion to the post of Director during the period. Repercussions of the earlier lost two opportunities are that all my juniors juni in the Select List 2016 (CSL No.4868, 4901, 4905, 4907, 4908, 4910, 4912 and 4916) are getting more pay than me and I am made to face financial loss, which consequently will also affect my future pension benefits etc. without any fault on my part."
2.4 He further highlighted that a representation was also made to that effect by the applicant no. 2, i.e., Mr. Dinesh Arora, wherein he submitted as under:
"(ii) It may further be stated that the DoPT had earlier nominated me twice in Level 'F' Training Programme Programme in March 2016 and again in June 2016 but DAC&FW did not relieve me for attending the same due to administrative reasons and exigencies of work. Thereafter, ISTM did not conduct the Level 'F' Training Programme as per schedule during the period from June 2016 to August 2017. ISTM could arrange the subsequent training programme only in August 2017, for which I was relieved to attend (convened during 28.8.2017 to 15.9.2017) and has since completed. It proves the factthat had the training been conducted earlier as per schedules of ISTM, I would have surely undergone and completed the training. Thus, as such, I was not provided any opportunity to complete the mandatory Level 'F' Training for more than a year, Page 3 of 19 Item No. 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.1284/2020 which has resulted in denying me promotion to the post of Director during the period. Repercussions of the earlier lost two opportunities are that all my juniors in the Select List 2016 (CSL No.4901, 4905, 4907, 4908, 4910, 4912 and 4916) are getting more pay than me and I am made to face financial loss, lo which consequently will also affect my future pension benefits etc. without any fault on my part."
2.5 Learned counsel for the applicant applicants also relied upon para 4.5 at page 7 of the O.A., which reads as under:
"4.5 That the applicants were nominated by DOPT three times for the F Level Training as under:
i. First time on 04.03.2016 for training from 14.03.2016 to 08.04.2016 vide DoPT letter dated 04.03.2016 but they were not relieved by their Department/Ministry on the ground of exigencies of work;
ii. Second time on 17.06.2016 for training from 20.06.2016 to
08.07.2016 vide DOPT order dated 17.06.2016 but second time also they were not relieved by their Department/ Ministry on the ground of exigencies of work;
iii. 3rd time they were nominated for training from 28.08.2017 to 15.09 2017. This time they were relieved and they successfully completed the F Level Training. Result of successful completion of the training was communicated vide ISTM's letter dated 11.1 11.10.2017."
2.6 Learned counsel for the applicant applicants relied upon the decision rendered by this Tribunal in O.A. No.2451/2017 dated 17.01.2023, which reads as under:
"8. Heard counsel for the parties at length, perused the records and gone through the legal position sition as well. The applicant who has since been retired on 30.06.2005, was left out for the reason that he was not in service on the date when the DPC took place for consideration to the aforesaid post. According to the respondents, the applicant is not eentitled ntitled for consideration for promotion because he has not actually shouldered responsibilities of the said post. If we apply the above ratio of P. G. George and Jagdish Lal (Supra), the applicant is liable to be considered for promotion even after his ret retirement on notional basis. Even according to the DOPT OM dated 12.10.1998, retired employee who were within zone of consideration in the relevant year are entitled for notional promotion.Page 4 of 19
Item No. 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.1284/2020
9. In view of the fact and circumstances of the case as well as th the legal
position perused, we are of this view that the applicant is entitled for consideration for the post of Under Secretary, with effect from the date he is eligible for promotion, but the promotion shall be given on notional basis with all consequentiall benefits. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
The OA stands allowed with no order as to costs."
3. Opposing the grant of relief, the learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit. He submits that the applicants in the instant OA belong to the Central Secretariat Service (CSS) under the Government of India and the instant O.A. has been filed led by them in the context of their promotion to the grade of Director of Central Secretariat Service. The promotion to various grades of CSS is governed by the CSS Rules, 2009 (Annexure R-11) R as amended from time to time and the regulations made thereunder.
thereunder. As per the existing CSS Rules 2009, the composition of the CSS is as under:
under:-
S.No. Group of Post/Grade Grade Classification
1. A Senior Selection Grade (Director) Central Civil Service Group A ministerial
2. A Selection Grade (Deputy Central Civil Service Secretary) Group A ministerial
3. A Grade-I (Under Secretary) Central Civil Service Group A ministerial
4. B Section Officer Central Civil Service Group B ministerial
5. B Assistant (since redesignated as Central Civilvil Service Assistant Section Officer) Group B ministerial 3.1. He further submitted that in the Rule 11(1) of CCS Rules, 2009, it has ben provided that the regular vacancies in the Senior Selection Grade (Director) shall be filled by promotion of regular officers ofSelection Grade(Deputy Secretary), who have rendered not less than five. years' Page 5 of 19 Item No. 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.1284/2020 approved service in that Grade. These rules were amended on 02 02.08.2016 .08.2016 (Annexure R-Ill) Ill) and the following proviso was added below the Rule 11(1):
"Provided that where sufficient number of eligible officers with five years' approved service are not available, regular officers of Selection Grade with not less than three years' of regular service in that grade and not less than ten years approved service from their appointment to the GradeGrade-!, !, shall also be eligible for promotion."
3.2. It has been further contended that the definition of the Approved Service as contained ined in the Rule 2(c) of CSS Rules, 2009 relevant for the purpose of promotion to Director Grade reads as under :
"In respect of an officer recruited to that grade on the basis of length of service in the lower grade, period or periods of regular service rrendered endered in that grade, including period or periods of absence during which he would have held a post on regular basis in that grade but for his being on leave or otherwise not being available to hold such post, from the first day of July of the year for wh which ich the recruitment was made;
Provided that where there is delay of more than ninety days in joining on appointment, such delay should not be due to any fault on the part of the officer."
3.3. Learned counsel for the respondents res further submitted that the CSS (Promotion to Senior Selection Grade, Selection Grade and Grade-l) Grade Regulations, 2010 (Annexure R R-IV) provide that:
(i) Select List for the Senior Selection Grade shall be published every year on the first of July of the year in accordance with the sa sanctioned nctioned strength of that grade.
(ii) The field of selection shall be determined by the Selection Committee by taking the required number of eligible Selection Grade Officers in the order· of their seniority.
(iii) The Selection Committee shall determine the merit of those being assessed for promotion to the Senior Selection Grade with reference to the prescribed benchmark and accordingly grade the officers as 'fit' or 'unfit' only.Page 6 of 19
Item No. 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.1284/2020
(iv) Subject to the orders of the Government, the recommendations of the Selection Committee as regards classification shall be accepted.
(v) The Select List shall be prepared by including the names of only those who are graded as 'fit' (i.e. who meet the prescribed bench-mark) bench mark) by the Selection Committee and arranged in the SSelect elect List in the order of their inter-se inter seniority in the Selection Grade and those officers who are graded 'unfit' (in terms of the prescribed bench-mark) bench mark) by the Selection Committee shall not be included in the Select List and the Select List so prepared shall be issued by the Department ofPersonnel and Training in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions.
The CSS (Promotion to Senior Selection Grade, Selection Grade and Grade I) Regulations 2010 provides, inter inter-alia, as under:
Para 2(a)) "Eligible Officer" means any officer who has undergone and successfully completed such mandatory training programm(s) as may be prescribed under Cadre Training Plan by DoPT and is eligible to be considered for appointment in Senior Selection Grade, Selection Selec Grade Select List."
3.4. Learned counsel for the respondents further submit submitted that the preparatory action for drawing up the Senior Selection Grade (Director) Select List 2016 was initiated in June, 2016. After completion of the necessary procedural requirements for holding the DPC meeting for consideration of the officers for their inclusion incl in Senior Selection Grade(Director) Select List 2016, a meeting of the DPC was held on 13.06.2016. In the said meeting, the Committee observed that the officers belonging to Deputy Secretary Select List 2011 and who are serving on 01.07.2016 are eligible ible for consideration for inclusion in Senior Selection Grade (Director) Select List, 2016.The Committee considered the assessment of 83 officers, of which 3 were backlog cases and the remaining 80 were from DSSL 2011.
2011 Ass per DoP&T's O.M. No. 4/11/2005-CS-II dated 15.12.2006 (Annexure R-VI), R VI), a training policy for Page 7 of 19 Item No. 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.1284/2020 training of various officers of the Central Secretariat Services was introduced in the year 2006. As per the said policy, the Selection Grade (Deputy Secretary) of CSS having 4 years' approved service service in the grade shall be nominated for Level 'F' Training Programme. It was also laid out in the policy that participation and successful completion of this training programme is mandatory for the purpose of consideration for promotion to the Senior Selection ction Grade(Director) of CSS. The said policy also explicitly clarified that the promotion/benefit linked to training will also stand postponed till an officer completed training. The names of the applicants were also included for consideration by the DPC as they had completed five years of approved service in the grade of Deputy Secretary as on 01.07.2016.As may be seen from Minutes of the Meeting held on 13.06.2016, the Committee observed as under:
" ... 8 The Committee noted that successful completion of o 'Level-F' F' training programme is mandatory for promotion from DS to Director Grade of CSS and thus decided thatan Officer who has not completed the mandatory Level-F Level Training except those who are exempted (due for retirement on superannuation within two yyears/ ears/ may be promoted only after and successful completion of the Level Level-F mandatory training.
3.5. He further submitted tthat hat subsequently the recommendations of the DPC were placed before the Competent Authority. This Department, vide order No.3/ 1/2016-CS-I(D)dated I(D)dated 30.06.2016, approved the inclusion of the 66 officers in the CSS Senior Selection Grade(Director) List 2016.
Consequent onsequent upon their inclusion in Senior Selection Grade (Director) List Page 8 of 19 Item No. 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.1284/2020 2016, the officers who were still in service at that time and had completed mandatory Level-F F training were promoted to the grade of Director from the date of their assumption of the charge of the said post. The he applicants in the O.A., were found 'FIT' by the DPC for inclusion in Director Select List 2016 subject too their successful completion of mandatory andatory Level Level-F training as per CSS-CTP.
CTP. Their actual promotion to the grade of Director was to be effective from the date they report for the post after their being declared as having successfully completed the mandatory Level-F training programme by the Institute of Secretariat Training and Management (ISTM). Since the applicants were declared qualified in the mandatory Level-F F training by the ISTM vide their letter dated 11.10.2017 (Annex -R--VII), their actual promotionss to the grade of Director was effective from the date they reported for the post after being declared as having successfully completed the mandatory Level-F Level training by the ISTM, as per Para Para-3 3 of this Department's O.M. No.3/ 1/20 16-CS-I(D) I(D) dated 13.11.2017 13.11.20 (Annex- R-VIII).
VIII). Accordingly, the pay of the applicants was flxed in the grade of Director w.e.f 11.10.2017 by Ministry of Home Affairs (National Intelligence Grid) & Department of Agriculture Cooperation & Farmers' Welfare. Subsequently, Subsequently the applicants made representations, dated 16.11.2018 & 14.09.2018 respectively,, to their Ministry/Department concerned, which were forwarded to DoP&T. The same were examined and it was decided that Page 9 of 19 Item No. 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.1284/2020 pay fixation in the grade of Director should be made effective only w.e.f w.e 11.10.2017, as has been done by their Ministry/Department concerned and accordingly the same was conveyed to Ministry of Home Affairs & Department of Agriculture Cooperation & Farmers Welfare vide this Department's O.M. No. 3/ 1/2016 1/2016-CS-I(D) dated 05.04.2019
4.2019 & 14.06.2019 respectively (annex (annex- R-IX). It is further submitted that DPCs enjoy full discretion to devise their own methods and procedures for objective assessment of the suitability of candidates who are to be considered by them. It has been held, as per DoP&T's O.M. No.22034/3/2007- Estt-(D) (D) dated 11.04.2017, in the Appeal (Civil) No. 689/2007(arising (arising out of SLP(C) No.2410/2007 in the matter of UOI and Anr. vs. S.K. Goel el & Ors-
Ors Judgment dated 12.02.2007 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that it is now more or less well settled that the evaluation made by an Expert Committee should should not be easily interfered with by the Courts which do not have the necessary expertise to undertake the exercise that is necessary for such purpose. In fact Hon'ble Supreme Court has noted that no judicial review of DPC proceedings, which are already conducted ducted in accordance with the standing Government instructions and rules, is warranted. The he applicants successfully completed their mandatory Level 'F' training only on 11.10.2017. In terms of Para-2(a) 2(a) of the CSS (Promotion to Senior Selection Grade, Selection Sele Grade and Grade I) Regulations 2010 an "Eligible Officer" means any Page 10 of 19 Item No. 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.1284/2020 officer who has undergone and successfully completed such mandatory training programme(s) as may be prescribed under Cadre Training Plan by DoPT and is eligible to be considered for appointment in Senior Selection Grade, Selection Grade Select List. Therefore, the pay of the applicants was rightly fixed xed in the grade of Director w.e.f 11.10.2017 i.e. from the day they were declared successfully qualified mandatory Level-
Level F training programme. He further submitted that the FR 17 (1) in this connection also provides that:
"Subject to any exceptions specifically made in these rules and to the provision of sub-rule rule (2}, an officer shall begin to draw the pay and allowances attached to histenure histenure of a post with effect from the date when he assumes the duties of that post, and shall cease to draw them as soon as he ceases to discharge those duties: Provided that an officer who is absent from duty without any authority shall not be entitled to any pay and allowances during the period of such absence."
3.6. It has been further contended by the respondents' counsel that the foregoing submission clearly establishes that the applicants are not entitled to any of the reliefs sought by them. The appli applicants cants were assessed 'FIT' for inclusion in Director Select List2016 by the DPC subject to their successful completion of mandatory Level-F Level F training as per CSS-Cadre CSS Training Plan. Their actual promotion to the grade of Director was to be effective from the date they reported for the post after being declared as having successfully completed the mandatory Level Level-F F training programme by the Institute of Secretariat Training and Management (ISTM) which was 11.10.2017.
0.2017.
Page 11 of 19
Item No. 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.1284/2020
4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
5. ANALYSIS 5.1 In CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8617 OF 2013 in the matter of V. Vincent Velankanni Versus The Union Of India And Others decided on 30.09.2024, denying relief to the appellant, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under :-
"34. Thus, it is trite that when an employee completes the probation period and is confirmed in service albeit with some delay, the confirmation in service serv shall relate back to the date of the initial appointment. Any departure from this principle in the form of statutory rules, executive instructions or otherwise must be consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
35.In In the backdrop of the above legal and factual background, let us now examine if whether the extant rules/regulations/circulars prevailing in the establishment contained any stipulation that the completion of the probation period and the passing of the trade test is sin qua non for being promoted to the skilled grade and if so, whether the seniority of the employees selected on the same date would have to be reckoned from the date of confirmation/passing the trade test or from the date of initial app appointment.
ointment. "
5.2. In normal course, the applicant would have been granted promotion on completion of training at first point of time time,, i.e., when juniors to him were accorded promotion.
5.3 In J. Davy Arockia Shreemahn and Ors. vs The Secretary to Government and Ors.. arising out of W.P.No. 2065 of 2020 - decided Page 12 of 19 Item No. 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.1284/2020 on 12.02.2020, The Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras observed as under :-
"7. The main ground on which the petitioners have come before this Court is that when the seniority list was drawn by the second respondent in the year 2015, there were 299 posts that was available and only 72 posts were filled up. According to the petitioners, petitioners, the service of the petitioners is entitled to be regularised on the completion of two years of service. This is subject to the condition that the petitioners complete their Bhavanisagar Training. All the persons, who were appointed as Assistants were not sent for training at one go and they were sent only on batches. Whatever batches completed the Bhavanisagar Training, was regularised and their probation was declared.
8. Earlier a dispute arose before this Court, as to whether, the delay in sending the Assistants for Bhavanisagar Training can be put against the candidates, who are regularised at a later point of time and they can be denied their appropriate seniority without considering the date of appointment. In this regard, this Court has to take note of the judgment in G.Raja v. The Secretary to Govt., Higher Education Department, Chennai 9, WP No.27349 of 2011 dated 16.08.2013.
16.08.2013. The relevant portions of the judgment are extracted hereunder.
"3.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was was appointed as Typist on compassionate ground due to the death of his father on 09.09.1994, while working as a Selection Grade Watchman in the Arignar Anna Government College, Walajapet. The petitioner joined in the post of Junior Assistant Assistant-cum-Typist on 25.10.1996 5.10.1996 in the Rajeswari Vedachalam Government Arts College, Chingleput. The petitioner passed the departmental test within the stipulated period and his probation was declared on 29.01.2004 with effect from 31.12.1998. The petitioner was sent for Founda Foundational tional Course Training in Bhavani Sagar Government Servants Training Institute from 17.07.2001 to 14.09.2001, which is one of the requirements for getting promotion to the post of Assistant.
4. According to the petitioner, due to the delay in regularizing the services of the petitioner as well as declaration of probation, he could not get his promotion as Assistant and Superintendent in time at par with his junior. In the meanwhile, the 3rd respondent issued a seniority list of Assistants, who were promote promotedd as Assistant in the panel year 2004-2005 2005 for the year 2011 2011-2012 2012 on 13.09.2011 and invited objections in respect of seniority in the cadre of the Assistant. In the said list, the name of the petitioner was not included. Whereas the petitioner's junior viz viz., ., A.Padmanabhan was included. The petitioner submitted his objection to the 2nd respondent and requested for revision of his seniority in the cadre of Assistant at par with his junior. The 2nd respondent, instead of restoring the seniority of petitioner, published the panel of Superintendent for the year 2011-2012, 2011 2012, wherein Page 13 of 19 Item No. 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.1284/2020 the name of his junior A.Padmanabhan and as many 17 persons from the said list have been promoted as Superintendent vide proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 26.10.2011. The petitioner petitioner having affected by not sending him for training and consequently non-inclusion non inclusion of his name in the panel for promotion and the denial of promotion, has filed this writ petition contending that sending of his juniors to undergo Bhavani Sagar Training and ffailure ailure to send the petitioner on time for training is unjust and merely for that reason, the petitioner cannot be denied of promotion.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents. This Court in W.P.No.13517 of 2009, by order dated 9.4.2010 considered the very same issue and in paragraph-19, paragraph it is held as follows:-
" 19. Going through the issue, this Court pointed out that on no fault of the petitioners but on account of administrative reasons, thee petitioners could not complete their service qualification to serve in the category of Rural Welfare Officer Grade I. It was pointed out that even though the petitioners had been in service as Junior Assistant with effect from 1991 and in the post of Ruralal Welfare Officer Grade I, the petitioners were not considered for further promotion on account of the non non- completion of the service requirements. This Court held that when the petitioners had successfully completed the departmental examinations, the petitioner petitioner cannot be denied inclusion in the panel on the ground that they did not possess the service qualification - an area which was purely in the hands of the respondents. Referring to the order of this Court dated 9.10.2006 in W.P.No.18501 of 2006 (C.Per (C.Periasamy iasamy and another Vs. The District Collector, Dharmapuri) holding that service qualification cannot be equated to a pass in the departmental test, this Court held: "While the pass in a departmental test may be in the hands of the individual, the posting ooff the individual to a particular post is not within the hands of the individual." In the circumstances, this Court held that the respondents should have formulated and implemented a policy providing equal opportunity to all persons to acquire the service qualifications.
qualifications. This Court pointed out that but for the belated regularisation in 1996, the petitioner would have undergone the foundation training in Bhavani Sagar Training Institute, the petitioners were not at fault, they should not have been omitted to be included in the panel. "
6. It is also pointed out in the said judgment in paragraph-21 paragraph that deputing the petitioner therein for one year training at Bhavani Sagar Institute cannot be attributed to the petitioner and he had not qualified himself though inclusion in the promotion panel for seniority cannot be allowed, as it would prejudice the petitioner as he was prevented by Page 14 of 19 Item No. 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.1284/2020 the department to undergo the training. Ultimately in paragraphs 28 to 31, it is held thus:
thus:-
" 28. It is no doubt true that in the the case of a person who sleeps over his right consciously, the question of showing any indulgence to disturb a well settled seniority will not arise. As already pointed out, on the appeal preferred by respondents respondents-3 to 5 dismissed, the seniority of the petit petitioner ioner remained undisturbed at least upto 2001. There was no occasion for the petitioner to entertain any doubt as to the seniority panel to voice his grievance. He came to know of this fact only when the petitioner's name was not included in the panel prepared prep for the year 2004 onwards. In the background of this fact, when as per the law declared by this Court, the petitioner's name should have been considered in the seniority list, he having successfully completed the examination well ahead of respondents 3 to 5, the delay in challenging the seniority list, by itself, cannot be held against the petitioner, for the simple reason that the delay on the part of the District Collector had caused serious prejudice to the petitioner by his not having deputed the petitioner to undergo the one year stint in the post of Rural Welfare Officer Grade II and for the foundation training in the Bhavani Sagar Training Institute as required under the Service Rules.
29. In the light of the above facts and in fairness to the claim of the petitioner, taking note of the decisions of this Court as referred to above, the petitioner merits to have his seniority fixed. I do not find any justification in the plea of the respondents on the issue of laches. In so doing, I am conscious of the decision of the Apex Court holding that a settled list of seniority and promotion should not be disturbed at a long distance of time vide the decision reported in (1976) 1 SCC 599 (Malcom Lawrence Cecil D'Souza Vs. Union of India) and (2008) 2 SCC 750 750 (Union of India Vs. Narendra Singh).
30. Going by the fact that the petitioner had passed all the departmental examinations and the delay in satisfying the service requirement was not attributable to the petitioner, without disturbing the seniority of respondents-3 3 to 5, I feel that respondents respondents-1 1 and 2 should place the petitioner in his original place in the order of seniority that at least in future, if and when the time comes, in the matter of granting promotion, the petitioner's name should be considered considered at the first place.
31. With the above observation, I allow this writ petition thereby set aside the order of the first respondent herein. By so setting aside the impugned order, it is hereby made clear that this Court does not intend to disturb the seniority of respondents respondents-33 to 5, as they had been in service for quite a long Page 15 of 19 Item No. 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.1284/2020 number of years. As already pointed out, respondents respondents-1 and 2 should consider the petitioner at the right place of seniority for considering him for further promotion from the pos post of Assistant to the post of Extension Officer and pass orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. "
7. Applying the said judgment, particularly, the principles stating that the petitioner cannot be blamed for not not undergoing the training in Bhavani Sagar, the non-inclusion non inclusion of the petitioner's name in the panel for promotion to the post of Assistant for the year 2003- 2003-2004 and denying promotion to the petitioner as Assistant on the date when his junior was given prpromotion omotion cannot be justified. However, taking note of the subsequent promotion given to the petitioner, the petitioner shall be notionally promoted for the post of Assistant from the date of promotion given to the petitioner's junior from 20.09.2004. The petitioner etitioner is not entitled to get any arrears of salary for the promoted post and the seniority alone is to be given by respondents. The said notional promotion shall be calculated for all purpose except backwages "
9. It is clear from the above judgment that the concerned candidates cannot be blamed for not undergoing the training in Bhavanisagar immediately after their appointment since there was an administrative delay in sending the candidates for training. It was made very clear in the above judgment for the purpose of seniority, it is only the date on which the person was appointed that must be taken into consideration. Mere delay in declaration of probation cannot be put against the candidates. This judgment has also been followed subsequently and consistently.
10. In the present case, the petitioners are requesting the respondents to place them in the right position in the seniority list in the panel for the year 2015. The representation has also been made to thethe respondents in this regard.
11. In view of the above, there shall be a direction to the second respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioners on 07.01.2020 and after getting the relevant details from the concerned Joint Commissioners, he shall pass appropriate orders orders strictly in accordance with Rules and in line with the present order, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The petitioners are directed to make a fresh representation to the second respondent along with a copy of of the representation dated 07.01.2020 and a copy of this order."
Page 16 of 19
Item No. 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.1284/2020 5.4. Learned counsel
unsel for the applicant drew our attention to a document dated 08.03.2016, which has been placed on record, which reads as under:
"Sub: Nomination of Level 'F' Training Programme Programme at ISTM during 14/3/2016 to 08/4/2016 08/4/2016- Reg.
DOPT vide their UO. No. 8/5/2015 dated 04/J3/2015 nominated the undersigned for Level 'F Training Programme w.e.f. 14/3/2016 to 08/4/2016 at ISTM, JNU Campus(old), New Delhi.
As the training of the offic officer er is mandatory and would affect the promotion of the officers. Confirmation with regard to the participation of the officers along with their respective bio-data bio (as per Annexure-II) II) is required to be sent to the ISTM at the earliest.
2. In view of the above it is requested that permission may kindly be granted to relieve the undersigned for the said course on time, so that confirmation to the participation and bio bio-data can be sent to the ISTM on time."
5.5. He further drew our attention to a document dated 17.06.2016, which is also placed on record. For the sake of better appreciation, the same is reproduced herein below:
"The undersigned has been nominated for Level 'F' Training Programme at ISTM for the period from 20/06/2016 20/06/2016 to 08/07/2016 by Deptt. of Personnel & Training vide DOPT OM dated 17th June 2016 (copy enclosed). I was nominated for the earlier Session in the month of March March-April, April, 2016 and due to exigency of workload I was not allowed to attend the training. This iis my second time nomination, hence I may be relieved to report for the training which starts from 20th June, 2016.
She is handling all the secret matters pertaining to this division as well as submission of proposals for the 1st supplementy Demand for GraGrants.
nts. All this needs to be accomplished during the ensuing week. The notice is received today and this is her 2nd nomination. As is evident, there are 3 chances and she can still go in the next nomination. As brought out above, it may not be appropriate to relieve her at this juncture."
5.6. If a promotion is denied due to a training delay for no fault of the applicant, the employee should have the opportunity to seek a review and re-consideration consideration of the situation. Learned counsel for the applicant Page 17 of 19 Item No. 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.1284/2020 submits that the applicant has been accorded the post of Director under the pay scale of Deputy Secretary w.e.f. 01.07.2016 and therefore seeking ante-dating dating of the promotion albeit on notional basis. The reasons assigned to deny the applicant fruits of empanelm empanelment ent are due to administrative exigencies are not attributable to her. The reasons for not sending the applicant twice is quite clear and explicit ""She She is handling all the secret matters pertaining to this division as well as submission of proposals for the 1st supplementary supplement y Demand for Grants. All this needs to be accomplished during the ensuing week. The notice is received today and this is her 2nd nomination. As is evident, there are 3 chances and she can still go in the next nomination. As brought out abo above, ve, it may not be appropriate to relieve her at this juncture." 5.7. In Jeewraj Singh Shekhawat vs Union Of India And Ors in W.P.(C) 9018/2022 decided on 14.10.2024, 14.10.2024 the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed that the petitioner could not be penalized for delays outside his control, particularly as his deputation was initiated by the Ministry. The court also noted that the respondents did not adopt a lenient approach in assessing the petitioner's case, resulting in undue delay and inequity in his promotion. Citing the case of Ashok Kumar v. Union of India, the court highlighted that the CRPF was responsible for ensuring personnel met their promotion requirements, not the individuals themselves. The court concluded that the petitioner deserved Page 18 of 19 Item No. 61 (Court-V) O.A. No.1284/2020 retrospective seniority and directed that he be placed above Ajay Kumar in rank as of the date Kumar was promoted.
6. CONCLUSION 6.1 In view of above, the OA is allowed thereby quashing the impugned decision. We direct the respondents to accord promotion and seniority on notional basis above immediate junior to the applicant applicants.
Consequential order(s) may follow within period of two months from date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Pending applications, if any disposed of. No costs.
(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/sb/
Page 19 of 19