Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
E Venkatesan vs M/O Defence on 26 July, 2024
1 OA No. 35/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00035/2016
Dated this, the 26th day of July, Two Thousand & Twenty Four
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, Member (A)
HON'BLE MR. M. SWAMINATHAN, Member (J)
E. Venkatesan
Token No.21138/0775
Machinist HS' - S.P.S.Section,
Engine Factory, Avadi, Chennai - 600 054. .....Applicant
By Advocate M/s. R. Prabhakaran
Vs.
1. Union of India, Rep. by its
The Secretary,
Ordnance Factories Board,
Ayudh Bhawan,
No.10-A, S. K. Bose Road, Kolkata-700 001
2. The General Manager,
Engine Factory, Avadi, Chennai -600 054. ....Respondents
By Advocate Mr. S. Nagarajan
2 OA No. 35/2016
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, Member(A)) This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:-
"To call for the records leading to the issuance of the impugned letter ref. No. EFAA/ADMIN/ 017/LDCE/2010-11 dated 22.12.2015 issued by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to grant promotion to the applicant to the post of Chargeman (Mechanical) with effect from 2010 under the Limited Department Competitive Examination (LDCE) with all back wages and other service benefits, and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice."
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the Applicant, are as follows, in brief:-
2.1. The applicant is presently working as Machinist 'HS', S.P.S. Section, under the 2nd respondent. The applicant belongs to the Schedule Caste (SC) community. The applicant completed Industrial Training for Turner during the academic year 1990-1992. The applicant underwent apprentice training under the 2nd respondent during the period 1993- 1994. He was appointed as Machinist - Semi-skilled, on 31.12.1997, under the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, the applicant was promoted as High Scale II Machinist with effect from 03.11.2005. Further promotional avenue for the applicant is High Scale I, which ought to have been given effect w.e.f.
13.10.2013, but was kept in a sealed cover.3 OA No. 35/2016
2.2. The applicant submits that the 2nd respondent, by Order No.051, dated 03.07.2008, called for Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for 12 posts. However, only five posts were filled up by Order No. 1126, dated 31.12.2008, initially, and, subsequently, six posts were filled up. By virtue of Order No.212, dated 19.3.2009, the 2nd respondent, even without conducting the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination, filled up six posts, from among the candidates who were kept wait-listed on the basis of the LDCE conducted in the year 2008.
2.3. By Order No.049, dated 07.04.2010, the 2nd respondent called for applications for eight posts for the year 2010-2011, wherein by Order No.961, dated 29.9.2010, four candidates, viz., A. Magesh Kumar, S. Damodaran, R. Gunasekar and K. Kumaravel, were promoted from the merit list. Subsequently, by Order No. 1099-A, dated 19.11.2010, of the 2nd respondent, one G.Mahesh Kumar, was promoted from Fitter (G) -HS to Chargeman (Tech/Mech).
2.4. Based upon the initial merit list, published vide letter, dated ref.OFIL/AV/1011/LDCE, dated 29.12.2008, after four long years, the 2nd respondent, by Order ref. No. EFA/A/ADMIN/ 017/ LDCE/CM, dated 19.11.2012, one Mr.Parthiban was promoted as CM (T/Elect) with effect from 31.12.2008.4 OA No. 35/2016
2.5. Again, by Order No.60, dated 10.08.2011, the 2nd respondent called for applications for 7 posts under LDCE and the Applicant secured 113 marks, in all, whereas the average mark is 45.20/Pass. Subsequently, by Order No.20702, dated 19.7.2012, three candidates were given promotion and by Order, dated 16.08.2012, one more candidate was given promotion.
Subsequently, by order No.32576, dated 7.9.2013, the applicant was re- designated as Machinist HS-II from Machinist - HS.
2.6. Since the year 2010, the applicant had been participating in all the LDCEs. Despite his qualification, length of service and passing in the departmental examinations, he has not been promoted to the post of Chargeman (Mechanical), notwithstanding the vacancies available, including the backlog. It is pertinent to submit that in the year 2008, LDCE was conducted for 7 Mechanical posts only, whereas 11 candidates were declared to have passed. The 2nd respondent had accommodated five senior merit candidates at the first instance and the rest of the candidates were accommodated in the year 2009, even without calling for new LDCE. In identical circumstances, the 2nd respondent has filled up the posts called for subsequent years by appointing the candidates who had passed/were waitlisted in the previous years.
2.7. The applicant had made several representations to the 2nd respondent, right from the year 2010, and the last representation, dated 30.11.2015, was 5 OA No. 35/2016 also submitted by the applicant. The 2nd respondent has not considered the applicant's case on merits, but simply issued the impugned letter, dated 22.12.2015, that the applicant's request is not acceded to. The 2nd respondent ought to have considered the case of the applicant for promotion on par with other candidates who were appointed even without conducting fresh LDCE for the relevant year.
2.8. Aggrieved, the applicant has filed this OA.
3.1. Respondents have filed their reply opposing the relief prayed for by the applicant. It is submitted that the applicant belongs to the SC community and was appointed as Machinist 'Semi- Skilled' on 13/12/1997, and was promoted as Machinist 'Skilled', on 18/03/2000, and, then, as Machinist "Highly Skilled-II", on 03/11/2005. The promotion papers of the applicant to the post of Highly Skilled-I, with effect from 15.10.2013, were kept in a sealed cover, as, during that time, the applicant was facing disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, under Rule 16(1)(b), vide Memorandum No.EFA/A/CG/018/EV, dated 19.11.2012. Further. after completion of the disciplinary proceedings, the applicant was imposed the penalty of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of two years, without cumulative effect, with effect from 22.11.2014, and hence, was under currency of penalty upto 22.11.2016. Despite his appeal against the above Penalty Order by the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority had confirmed the penalty. 6 OA No. 35/2016 Further, the applicant had submitted a Revision Petition against the Order of the Appellate Authority confirming the penalty. The Revising Authority had revoked the penalty vide order, dated 16.11.16, and, subsequently, the applicant was notionally promoted to the post of Highly Skilled-I, with effect from 15.10.2013, vide F.O Part III No 1351, dated 14.03.2017. 3.2. Though Factory Order No. 051, dated 03.07.2008, was published for filling up of vacancies in the post of Chargeman (Tech & Non-Tech) through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination - 2008, due to merger of Chargeman post, vacancies were increased in the backlog LDCE quota. Therefore, in the process of filling up the backlog quota, additional vacancies (six numbers) were filled up with the candidates in the merit list of the LDCE conducted in 2008, vide F.O. No. 212, dated 19.03.2009, inadvertently.
3.3. Since it had come to the notice of the 2nd Respondent that filling up of six backlog vacancies with candidates from the merit list of LDCE conducted in 2008, in addition to the notified vacancies, was highly irregular, necessary corrective action was initiated with the issue of Show Cause Notice, dated 07.02.2017, to the six candidates who were appointed against the six backlog vacancies, vide F.O., dated 19.03.2009, supra. However, the above six employees filed OAs before the CAT, Madras Bench, against the Show Cause Notice issued to them and the Tribunal, in 7 OA No. 35/2016 OA No.310/00347/2017 and batch of cases granted the interim relief that the respondents are directed to maintain status-quo with regard to the impugned Order No. EFA/A/Admin/017/LDCE, dated 07.02.2017 (Show Cause Notice), and the said OAs are pending.
3.4. Factory Order No. 049, dated 07.04.2010, was published for filling up of vacancies in the post of Chargeman (Tech) through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination-2010. In respect of the Mechanical Grade, only 4 vacancies in UR were filled, and one UR vacancy was kept unfilled for clarification, since the candidate selected possessed a degree from IME, Mumbai. However, two ST vacancies in the Mechanical Grade were kept unfilled due to non-availability of ST candidates. After receipt of the necessary clarification from the 1st Respondent, the one UR vacancy, that was kept pending in the Mechanical Grade, was filled with Shri G. Mahesh Kumar, Fitter General HS, with effect from 23.09.2010, vide order, dt. 19.11.2010.
3.5. Limited Department Competitive Examination for the grade of Chargeman (T/Elect) was held in 2008. As per the initial merit list, Shri. R. Premkumar and Shri. P. Dayalan were appointed as Chargeman (T/Elect), with effect from 31.12.2008. However, subsequently, Ordnance Factories Institute of Learning, Avadi, vide their letter, dated 21.12.2009, revised the merit list. The 1st Respondent, vide Ltr No. 987/OA-
8 OA No. 35/20161515/2010/SP/EFA/A/A/NG, dated /08/2012 (Annexure R-5), directed to accommodate / promote Shri. S. Paarthiban to Chargeman (T/Elect) against the existing vacancy available with EFA or to adjust him against future vacancies. Further, the 1st Respondent directed that Shri. P. Dayalan, who was earlier appointed on the basis of the original merit list and was already performing the duties of CM (T/Elect), may not be reverted. Thus, Shri. S. Paarthiban was promoted to Chargeman (Elect), with effect from 31.12.2008, with all the consequential benefits. However, the case of the applicant was not similar to this case.
3.6. Further, even though the Applicant had passed the LDCE-2010, he was not eligible to be appointed as Chargeman since he stood at the 8th position in the merit list, whereas the UR vacancies to be filled up were only
5. 3.7. F.O. No. 60, dated 10.08.2011, was published for filling up of vacancies in the post of Chargeman (Tech), through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination -2011. In respect of the Mechanical Grade, only 3 UR and 1 SC candidates, who came on merit, were eligible for appointment to the post of Chargeman (Tech/Mechanical). However, only 2 UR and 1 SC posts were filled up, vide F.O. No. 20702, dated 19.07.2012, and 1 UR vacancy was kept under sealed cover for the reason that the selected candidate was facing disciplinary proceedings, at that time. All the 12 9 OA No. 35/2016 candidates, including the applicant, who had appeared at the above exam had passed. However, the applicant was not eligible to be appointed as Chargeman since he stood in the 9th position in the merit list, whereas the vacancies to be filled up were only 4 (under UR-3 & under SC-1), leaving aside the 2 ST vacancies, for which the applicant was not eligible. The representation, dated 30.11.2015, of the applicant is totally without any application of mind.
3.8. The applicant wants to be promoted / appointed just because he had passed the exam, irrespective of the number of vacancies to be filled up from the merit list, which is in violation of the rules and regulations on recruitment / appointment.
3.9. Accordingly, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the OA as devoid of merits.
4. Heard both sides and perused the records. Both sides have also submitted written arguments.
5.1. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the 2nd Respondent, against the constitutional norms, had appointed another 6 persons from the reserve list of the 2008 LDCE, for the post of Chargeman II, by Order No. 212, dated 19.03.2009, after exhausting the 6 vacancies which were advertised. He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Rakhi Ray Vs. High Court of Delhi [(2010) 2 SCC 637], 10 OA No. 35/2016 wherein it is held that "Filling up of vacancies over the notified vacancies amounts to filling up of future vacancies and thus, is not permissible in law". 5.2. It is also argued that in matters of promotion, the unfilled vacancies for the reserved category openings can be exchanged in the recruitment year, itself, and this had not been followed in the Applicant's case, as the unfilled vacancy in the recruitment year of 2010, was not exchanged with the Applicant though the post meant for ST category remained vacant. As per DP & AR O.M No. 36011/4/82-Estt. (SCJ), dt. 15-3-1982, cited by the applicant, when the reserved vacancies are carried forward and suitable candidates are available in the third year, then Scheduled Tribes may be considered for the vacant posts of Scheduled Castes and vice versa. 5.3. In the LDCE 2011, the Applicant had achieved pass marks and secured the 9th and category wise rank of 3. It is clear from the rules that when reserved category seats were unfilled, for the want of suitable candidates, then the reserved seats can be exchanged with other reserved category. In this particular instance, the Applicant had come 3rd in the SC category and, as no candidates was available for the 2 vacancies, reserved for the ST category, the unfilled seats ought to have been exchanged with the persons who had passed the LDCE, under the SC category. 6.1. Learned counsel for respondents argued that even though the Applicant had passed the LDCE-2010, he was not eligible to be appointed as 11 OA No. 35/2016 Chargeman since he stood in the 8th position in the merit list, whereas the UR vacancies to be filled up were only 5. He was also not eligible to be appointed as Chargeman since he stood 9th position in the merit list for LDCE-2011 (Annexure-R7), whereas the vacancies to be filled up were only 4 (under UR-3 & under SC-1), leaving aside the 2 ST vacancies, for which the applicant was not eligible.
6.2. According to the learned counsel for the Respondents, it is well- settled law that filling up of the vacancies over and above the number of vacancies advanced would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Mere inclusion of the applicants in the select list of the direct appointees does not confer any right on them to be appointed against the vacancies reserved for promotion.
7. We find that, in the present case, the ranking of the applicant in LDCE-2010 and LDCE-2011 was 8th and 9th, respectively. There were 5 vacancies for UR, NIL for SC and 2 for ST as per the relevant Factory Order of 2010. 5 vacancies in the Mechanical Grade in the UR category were filled, out of which 01 was filled after getting clarification. In respect of vacancies for the year 2011, in the Mechanical Grade, there were 3 UR vacancies, 01 SC vacancy and 2 ST vacancies. 01 SC vacancy and 2 UR vacancies were filled up and the name for 01 UR vacancy was kept in a sealed cover, as the selected candidate was facing disciplinary proceedings 12 OA No. 35/2016 at that time. In LDCE-2015-16, his position was 12th. Whereas, only one vacancy was available and that, too, in the UR category.
8. According to the respondents, the position of the applicant in LDCE- 2010 and LDCE-2011 did not entitle him to promotion. They did not fill up the ST vacancies for want of suitable candidates, and, in any case, the applicant belongs to the SC category. The department has clearly admitted the error on their part in promoting 11 candidates against the merit list for LDCE-2008, even though only 6 vacancies were notified. The details of the error and corrective measures to be taken are contained in the show cause notice, dt. 07.02.2017. The applicant had made a representation to the department on 30.11.2015 which was turned down through the impugned Admn-Division Memo, dt. 22.12.2015.
9. It is also an admitted fact that the applicant was facing departmental proceedings, vide charge memo, dt. 19.11.2012, for gross misconduct, for which punishment was imposed on 01.12.2014, vide the order quoted below:-
"No.33752 Dt.: 01.12.2014 SUB: IMPOSITION OF PENALTY SHRI E. VENKATESAN, MACHINIST The charges under Rule 16 (1)(b) of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, against SHRI. E.VENKATESAN, MACHINIST, T/Per No.21138/775 issued vide Memorandum No.EFA/A/CG/018/EV dated 19.11.2012 for the gross misconducts (1) Participating in gherao and illegal confinement of 15 Group 13 OA No. 35/2016 'A' Officers from 1130 hours on 05.05.2012 upto 1230 hours on 06.05.2012 in the verandah leading to Main Conference Room; (2) Wilful insubordination or disobedience of order of a superior; (3) Disorderly behavior causing chaos and spoiling the peaceful atmosphere of the factory and subversive to discipline; (4) Undemocratic way of protest; (5) Refusal to allow food and water to the confined Officers; (6) Missing from work spot; and (7) Causing interruption in production acts unbecoming of a Government Servant, in violation of Rule 7 (for Charge 1 above) & Rule 3(1)(ii)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, have been established. Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority has imposed a penalty of 'REDUCTION OF PAY BY ONE STAGE FROM Rs 10500 TO Rs.10120 IN THE PAY BAND OF Rs.5,200-Rs.20,200/- & GRADE PAY OF Rs.2400, FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS WITH EFFECT FROM 22.11.2014 ON SHRI E.VENKATESAN AND IT IS FURTHER DIRECTED THAT SHRI E VENKATESAN WILL NOT EARN INCREMENTS OF PAY DURING THE PERIOD OF REDUCTION AND THAT ON THE EXPIRY OF THIS PERIOD, THE REDUCTION WILL NOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF POSTPONING HIS FUTURE INCREMENTS OF PAY' in terms of Rule 11
(iii) (a) of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965.
(Authority: GM/EFA Order No.EFA/A/CG/018/EV Dt. 22.11.2014) "
10. The above punishment was set aside by the Revising Authority, vide order, dt. 16.12.2016, which reads as follows :-
"No.996 Dt.16.12.16 SUB: REVOCATION OF PENALTY IN R/O SHRI E VENKATESAN, MACHINIST PER.NO.775.
REF: F.O. PART III NO. 33752 DATED 01.12.2014.
The Revising Authority has REVOKED the penalty of "Reduction of pay by one stage for a period of two years without cumulative effect" imposed on SHRI E. VENKATESAN, MACHINIST of SPS Section vide GM/EFA Order No.EFA/A/CG/018/EV D1.22.11.2014, considering the Revision Petition dated 18.11.2015 submitted by SHRI E VENKATESAN, MACHINIST to the Revising Authority.
(Authority: DDP, MoD Order No.22(54)/2016/D-Estt/NG DL.25.11.2016) "
11. Thereafter, the applicant was granted promotion, vide order, dt. 14.03.2017, which reads as follows :-
14 OA No. 35/2016
"Sub: Promotion in the industrial Establishment - From Machinist HS-11 to Machinist HS-1 The following employees are promoted to the Highly Skilled Grade-I notionally w.e.f. the date as shown against the names and monetarily w.e.f. date of assumption of higher charges :-
Sl. No. Name/Token/Pmt. Present Trade/Grade Promoted in the No./Section, Category & Scale of Pay and Trade/Grade & S/Shri Grade Pay Scale of Pay and Grade pay Notionally w.e.f.
1. E. Venkatesan (SC) Machinist Highly Machinist Highly 21138/775 Skilled-II ₹5,200- Skilled-1 ₹5,200-
SPS 20,200+₹2,400/- 20,200+₹2,800/-
15.10.2013
2. G.O. Samivel (SC) Machinist Highly Machinist Highly
20213/749 Skilled-II ₹5,200- Skilled-1 ₹5,200-
MPS 20,200 + ₹2,400/- 20,200+₹2,800/-
11.01.2014
"
Thus, the applicant was notionally promoted in the Trade/Grade as Machinist HS-I w.e.f. 15.10.2013.
12. The applicant has relied upon the following judgments to argue his case for exchange of ST vacancies in his favour :-
i. Judgment, dt. 13.09.2012, of the CAT-Ernakulam Bench in OA No. 276 of 2011, in the case of G. Sunilkumar and ors Vs. Union of India and ors., MANU/CA/0632/2012;
ii. Judgment, dt. 30.01.2017, of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in WP (C) No. 20236 of 2013, in the case of Parsuram Padhi Vs. District Judge- cum-Chairman, District Recruitment Committee, Balasore and ors., MANU/OR/0050/2017;
15 OA No. 35/2016iii. Judgment, dt. 31.08.2012, of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in WP(C) No. 4008 of 2011, in the case of Susanta Kumar Sethi and ors Vs. State of Orissa and ors., MANU/OR/0350/2012;
iv. Judgment, dt. 05.01.2004, of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 4593-4597 of 2004, in the case of Ramrao and ors. Vs. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Association and ors., MANU/SC/0014/2004.
13. He has also cited the DoPT OM, dt. 06.11.2003, wherein the Subject shows - "Non-permissibility of exchange of reservation between SCs and STs."
14. We have gone through the order, dt. 29.08.2013, of this Tribunal, in OA 1399/2011 against the notice for reversion of the candidates who were promoted against the LDCE-2008, over and above the notified vacancies, as discussed in the show cause notice. The relevant paras are extracted below :-
"7. We have considered the matter carefully. According to the respondents, the DOP&T OM dated 11.7.2002 is specific that SC/ST candidates appointed on their own merit are eligible to get the benefit of reservation in further promotions On similar issue, this Tribunal in OA.900/2005 dated 14.9.2006 in the case of Kalugasalamoorthy vs. Union of India and others has held that when a person is selected on the basis of his own seniority, the scope of considering him and counting against the quota reserved for 'SC' will not arise. The said order of this Tribunal was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in WP.No.15926/2006 dated 20.8.2009. Based on the above Judgements, the DOP&T issued OM dated 10.8 2010 withdrawing the OM dated 31 1.2005 and clarifying that the SC/ST candidates appointed by promotion on their own merit and seniority and not owing to reservation or relaxation of qualifications will be adjusted against unreserved points of reservation roster, irrespective of the fact whether the promotion is made by selection method or non-selection method. The above OM (dated 10.8.2010 was, however, set aside by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and 16 OA No. 35/2016 Haryana in CWP.13218/2009 dated 15.7.2011 in the case of Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors. vs. Jarnal Singh & Ors., Subsequent to the Judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana(supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay has upheld the above OM dated 10.8.2010 In WP.8986/2011 dated 8.11.2011 In the case of UOI & Ors. -vs- All India Income Tax SC/ST Employees Welfare Federation & Ors., by relying upon the Judgement in the case of R.K. Sabharwal which is a Constitutional Bench Judgement delivered by 5 Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that is binding on all. In the above circumstances, the applicants have approached this Tribunal to set aside the OFB order dated 7.12.2010 and this Tribunal vide order dated 17.11.2011 in MA 779/2011 issued Interim direction directing the respondents not to Implement the OM dated 10.8.2010 and also the impugned order dated 7.12.2010 till the next day of hearing. It is submitted by the respondents that against the Judgement of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 13218/2009 dated 15.7.2011, the respondents therein ie. Jarnail Singh and others have approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) 30621/2011 and is still pending.
8. In the above circumstances, we are of the considered view that when the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and taking into account that any decision rendered at this juncture by this Tribunal would adversely affect the interest of either of the parties, in the interest of justice, we direct the respondent to go on with the process of revision of seniority but with the condition that any revision would be subject to the result of the SLP (Civil) 30621/2011 pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court
9. With the above direction, the OA is disposed of. Consequently, MA.843/2011 and MA. 12/2013 are also disposed of. No costs."
In OA No. 1399/2011, the issue of reservation has already been examined, in detail.
15. Simply because the OFB erred, by their own admission, in promoting 6 persons from the merit list for LDCE - 2008, on 19.03.2009, vide FO No. 212, it does not grant any right to the applicant to benefit from this error. The Respondent has argued that "going by the case laws quoted by the applicant himself, it is explicit that the applicant is not eligible to be promoted / appointed to the post of Chargeman (Mechanical)". They 17 OA No. 35/2016 have also relied upon the judgment in Mukul Saikia Vs. State of Assam (2009) 1 SCC 386 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under :
"44. It is well-settled law that filling up of the vacancies over and above the number of vacancies advanced would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Mere inclusion of the applicants in the select list of the direct appointees does not confer any right on them to be appointed against the vacancies reserved for promotes."
16. Respondents have also relied upon the following decisions :-
i. Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of UP Vs. Raj Kumar Sharma [(2006) 3 SCC 330], wherein it has been held that:
"Even if in some cases appointments have been made by mistake or wrongly that did not confer any right of appointment to another person. Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative equality and if the State had committed a mistake it cannot be forced to perpetrate the said mistake."
ii. Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Orissa and another v. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436, wherein it was observed that:
"36. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality and it does not envisage negative equality. Thus, even if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such order does not confer any legal right on the petitioner to get the same relief."
17. Further, since the applicant was himself under disciplinary proceedings, there was no question of considering his case for promotion between 19.11.2012 and 16.12.2016 as the penalty was finally revoked on the latter date. We also find that, within a reasonable time, he has been promoted, thereafter, and the scale of pay and Grade Pay were released notionally from back date, ie., 15.12.2013.
18 OA No. 35/2016
18. In the light of the above discussions, it is found that the stand taken by the department is well justified and as per rules, and, therefore, we find no grounds to interfere with the impugned order, dt. 22.12.2015.
19. The OA is, therefore, dismissed. Pending MAs, if any, are closed. No order as to costs.
(M. Swaminathan) (Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi)
Member (J) Member (A)
26.07.2024
SKSI