Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Sanjay Kumar Jain vs M/O Railways on 1 December, 2023
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Mumbai Bench,
Mumbai.
CRMAZTSI016
ated this Friday the 1" day of December, 2624,
Coram: Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (Judicial)
Dr. Bhagwan Sahai, Member { Administrative).
Shri Sanjay Kumar Jain,
Senior Materials Manager,
Western Railway, Churchgate,
Muribai.
Rio C-34, Badhwar Park, Colaba,
Mumbai -- 400 005,
(in Person )
Versus
1. Union of India, through
the Secretary,
Railway Board, Rail Bhawan,
New Delhi -- 110 001.
Ramanand Singh,
Senior Divisional Materials Manager,
DRM Office, Ratlam -- 457 001
Presently working as ;
Deputy Chief Material Manager,
4° Floor, Western Railway,
Churchgate, Station Building, Mumbai ~ 400 020.
KR. Chaubs,
Deputy Chief Material Manager,
4° Fl, Wester Railway,
Churchgate Station Building,
Mumbai ~ 400 020,
( By Advocate Shri S. Ravi ).
tao
Order reserved on : 27.09.2023
Order pronounced on : 01.12.2023
.. Applicant.
.. Respondents.
2 QAR TI2016
ORDER
Per: Dr. Bhagwan Sahai, Member (A)
Shri Sanjay Kumar Jain, Senior Materials Manager, Western Railway, Churchgate, Mumbai filed this O.A. on 29.01.2016 seeking direction ta respondents to promote him. to Group 'A' post from 01.04.2005 or earlier as per roster for 3% disability quota with date of imcrement on time scale from 01.04.2005 or earlier with consequential benefits such as further promotions, arrears, etc and also award cast of this proceeding in his favour.
2. Summarized facts:
2(a). The applicant joined as Depot Store Keeper Grd] under General category from 19.02.1988, He got his first promotion as Depot Store Keeper Gr Jl in 1996 and 2™ promotion as Depot Store Keeper Gr] in 2001. Then he applied for further promotion as Assistant Materials Manager but was not promoted. So he approached this Tribunal through Q.A.439/2001 in which the Tribunal directed the respondents to promote him fram 30" October, 2000. Hence he joined as Assistant Materials Manager on proforma promotion from 30° October, 2000.
2b). Yhen he was further promoted as Materials Manager based on different Court orders. Then he joined as Sr Materials Manager on 25.08.2006 on proforma promotion with effect from 18.06.2004, based on order of this Tribunal in O.A.671/2006 dated 04.11.2009 directing the ta © a to ond oat tn?
oo oh oy respondents to promote him from 15.06.2004 but with monetary benefits only from 23.08.2006. Thereafter he has been promoted to Group 'A' with date of increment on time seale fixed as 12.03.2009 by order dated 11.08.2014. He requested the respondents to promote him to Group 'A' by fixing date of increment on time scale on 01.04.2005 under 3% disability quota by his application dated 08.10.2014, This application --
was turned down by order dated 21.08.2015. Being aggrieved of the above order of the respondents, this O.A has been fled.
2(e}. Since respondents in their reply raised objection about non- joinder of necessary parties, the applicant has filed M._A.58/2022, for impleading Shri Ramanand Singh, Sr, Material Manager, Ratlam and Shri KK. Chaubey, Dy. Chief Material Manager, Western Railway, Churchgate, Mumbai as private respondents. This M.A. was allowed on 06.10.2022 and the O.A. has been amended accordingly making those 2 officers as private respondents no.2 and 3 in the OLA, | | a
3. Contentions of the applicant :
In the O.A,, rejoinder, additional reply or counter to reply of respondents and during submissions of the applicant, he contended as under :
3{a). The applicant has also filed M.A.56/2022 on 04.01.2022 for condonation of delay in filing this OLA, explaining that there has been delay of about 6 years in filing the present O.A, for promotion to Group
4 OA27T 2016 'A However, this delay has not been deliberate on his part. This delay has been becausé of his ignorance of legal requirements. After he was promoted to Group 'B' on 20.05.2004 with seniority from 30.10.2000, after completing of 3. years of service in Group 'B' he should have been considered for promotion as Group 'A' after 30.10.2003 and his name should have been included in Group 'A' panel issued on 19.03.2009 and Date of Increment in Time Scale (DITS) should have been fixed as 24.12.2003. Accordingly he submitted an application on 08.10.2013 to revise his DITS when name was included in Group A' panel issued on 11.08.2014. Therefore, the delay is from 19.03.2009 1 08.10.2014, During this period he was suffering from ratinitis pigmentosa, glaucoma and cataract diseases and he underwent eye surgery twice in January, 2007 and September, 2015. Therefore, the delay should be condoned:
3(b). about his disability the applicant has filed a copy of certificate issued by Office of the Director, Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi dated 01.05.2001 certifying that he was suffering from advanced retinitis plementosa and it was a permanent disability. He has also brought on record photocopies of prescriptions issued by the medical department of Western Railway from December, 2006 onwards upto March, 2019. In these prescriptions application of eye drops ratinoprost / latanoprost was included.: | 3(e}. as provided under Section 33 of Persons with Disabilities AI Ss Eee) od ad bo Op froets Eee Act, 1995, 3% reservation is to be provided for disabled persons or employees in all posts in Group A, B,C & D. This is also applicable for promotion from Group 'B' post to Group 'A' post for persons sutfering from Blindness or low vision, hearing impairment, loco motor disability or cerebral palsy to the posts identified for each disability;
3d). this has been confirmed by Bombay High Court decision dated 04.12.2013 in PIL 106/2010. Delhi High Court in its judement dated 04.08.2010 in Writ Petition No.2821/2010 has also confirmed it. h has been further confirmed by the Supreme Court decisions dated 10.42.2013 in SLP No.O473/2011 and dated 12.09.2014 in SLP No.13344/2014. In another decision of Supreme Court dated 27.02.2015 in SLP 5914/2015, the above position has again been confirmed. As per DoPT letter dated 18.02.1997 and 16.01.1998, reservation for physically handicapped persons in promotion in all groups shall be made applicable to all grades and services and in every establishment not less than 3% vacancies are to be reserved for physically handicapped persons in Group A' and "B' posts filled through direct recruitment, the roster is to be maintained in every Department and suitable posts for such reservation should be identified:
ie}. on 3 previous occasions the date of promotion of the applicant was preponed by orders of this Tribunal. There may be 100 of such officers who were appointed to Group A after 01.05.2005 and, 6 QA2Q73/2016 therefore, it is not possible to make all such officers as respondents in this O.A. So the averments made by the respondents in their reply are wrong.
But subsequently through M_A.58/2022, he has impleaded in this O.A, {Wo private respondents no,? and 3;
3(8}. the OM dated 12.05.2016 is illegal as it was based on earlier OM of 29.12.2005 which was set aside by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the claim of the respondents in their reply dated 18.06.2016 is not tenable claiming that there were no DoPT instructions for 394 reservation for physically disabled persons in Group 'A' and 'B:, 3(g). the applicant has relied on a number following Supreme Court decisions and stipulations in two DoPT letters:
@ DoPT letters dated 18.02.1997 and 16.01.1998 provided that the existing policy of reservation for SCs/STs including physically handicapped persons in promotions in all sroups is applicable to al] grades and services, where the element of direct 'eatulicnent does not exceed 75%. The applicant has submitted that he js simply seeking antedating of his promotion to Group 'A's
(i). Supreme Court decision in Writ Petition (C) No.521/2008 (Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Others Vs. Union of India & Others) dated 30.06.2016 and C.ANo.33 89/2016, has set aside DoPT OMs dated 18.02.1997 and 29.12.2005 and the Goveitinent Was directed to extend 3% reservation for Persons with Disabilities in all identified posts In son o OADTRL0T6 Group A and Group B irrespective of mode of filling them. These DoPT letters were set aside because of inconsistencies in them with provisions of Persons with Disabilines Act, 1995.
Cap. Supreme Court decision in C.A.NoS9/2021 dated 28.02.2021 (The State of Kerala & Ors. Vs. Leesamma Joseph) referring to Supreme Court decision in case of Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Others and Siddaraju Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. dismissed the appeal directing the appellant to implement those judgments for providing reservation in promotion in all posts after notifying such posts for disabled persons. He has also relied on Supreme Court decision in C.A.No.529/2023 (Reserve Bank of India & Ors. Vs. A.K. Nair & Ors.) dated 04.07.2023 in which referring fo the earlier Supreme Court decision in case of Raisev Kumar Gupta Vs. Others and Siddaraja & Others Vs. State of Karnataka and others and State of Kerala & Others Vs, Leesamma Joseph, directions were issued to RBI for granting notional promotion to Shri Nair as Assistant Manager GrA as per his eligibility. In view of the above submissions, the O.A. should be allowed;
Contentions of the respondents < In their reply, sur-rejoinder and during arguments of thier counsel, the respondents have contended as under :
-3¢h). the applicant has claimed relief with retrospective effect 8 OA.273/2016 from 01.04.2005 which is heavily time-barred and, therefore, the O.A. is barred by limitaiton as per provided under Section 21 of AT Act, 1985. Grant of such relief also affects adversely interest of other Indian Railway Stores Service Officers appointed to Group A after 01.04.2005 but before the applicant. None of such officers has been made party as respondents to the O.A. and, therefore, this O.A. also suffers from vice of non-joinder of necessary parties, Therefore, on these grounds the O.A. should be dismsised:
3(i). meetings of Departmental Promotion Committee -- for promotion of Group B officers of zonal Railway te Group A / Jr Scale ate conducted by the UPSC in terms of DoPT instructions dated 10.04, 1989, as amended from time to time. A proposal was submitted to the UPSC for convening mecing of the DPC to consider eligible Group B officers of Stores Department for their promotion to Group A Jr. Scale of IRSS against the promotion quota vacancies for vacancy year 2012-13 and 2013-14. Meeting of the DPC was accordingly conducted by the UPSC on 08.03.2014 and recommendations were received in letter dated 12.03.2014 in which the name of the present applicant was also recommended for promotion to Group A Jr Scale of IRSS for vacancy year 2012-2013. After processing the proposal, $1 Group B officers including the applicant of Stores Department were appointed to Group A of IRSS with effect from 12.03.2014 as per Railway Board notification 9 OA.273/2016 dated 20.05.2014 and their inter-se seniority and dates of increment on the time scale were circtilated to all General Managers of the Railways on 11.08.2014 in which the name of the present applicant was at Sr.No.3 time scale as 12.03.2009;
Ag). the applicant was considered eligible for promotion ta Group B from 06.11.2000 in Pay Band of Rs.7500-12000 with Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- as per 6" CPC. Shri Prithvi Singh, junior to the applicant was promoted to Group B post of AMM from 06, 11.2000. Therefore, the applicant became eligible for promotion from that date. Accordingly he was promoted to Sr. Scale on adhoc basis on 18.06.2004, the date when Shri V.K.P. Nair his junior was promoted to Sr. Scale on adhoc basis from 04.11.2009. Representation of the applicant dated 29/30.12.2014 regarding 3% reservation in promotion to disabled employees was forwarded by Western Railway to Railway Board and | after its | examination reply was received from the Railway Board with letter dated 21.08.2018, 3(k). the contention of the applicant about availability of reservation is not correct. There is no provision for granting 3% promotion to persons with disabilities from Group B to Group A. Reservation of 3% promotions in Group C and D was introduced by DoPT OM dated 20.17.1989. Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities 19 OA27T3 2016 (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, provided that every appropriate Government shall appoint in every establishment such percentage of vacancies not less than 3% for persons or class of persons with disability of which 1% each shall be reserved for persons suffering from blindness or low vision, hearing impairment, and locomotor disability or cerebral palsy. Appropriate Government considering type of work carried on in ary department or establishment also could exempt any establishment from the provision of that Section. The reservation in promotion for Group C and D posts has been continued thereafter and by superseding previous OMs issued on the subject, DoPT OM dated 29.12.2005 provided that 3% vacancies In case of promotion to Group C and D posts in which the direct recruitment does not exceed 73% should be reserved for persons with disabilities. Thus there was no reservation for promotion from Group B to Group Aas per those provisions;
3). subsequently Supreme Court in its decision dated 08.10.2013 (Union of India Vs. National Federation of Blind) directed that appropriate Government should compute the number of vacancies in all the establishments and identify the posts for disabled persons and computation of reservation for persons with disabilities should be done in Group A.B.C & D in identical manner Le. for computing 3% reservation
-and total number of vacancies in the cadre strength. Thereafter the feee os poe OA2TIAOTO Supreme Court in its order dated 61.09.2015 directed that the 3% reservation for persons with disabilities should be computed as provided in the order dated 08.10.2013 and manner of identification of vacancies must be uniform in all the groups ie, A,B,C & D. tn view of the above provisions and the relevant applicable rules/instructions as well as Court decisions, relief sought by the applicant is not permissible:. 3(m). after giving benefit of S years in antedating seniority in Group 'A' post of promotee officers, the applicant was placed in the seniority list below IRSS-2007 batch and placed above directly recruited afficers batch of 2008. DoPT OM dated 17.05.2022 has provided for 4% reservations for disabled persons ie. 1% each for blindness and low vision, hearing impairment and locomotor disability and 1% for autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness as well as multiple disabilities falling in above 1 to 4 categories and the DoPT OM also directed that the roster has to be maintained by Cadre Controlling Authorities to provide reservation in promotions to persons with benchmark disabilities, In notification issued by Department of Employment of Persons with Benchmark Disabilities dated 04.01.2021 posts have been mentioned in Annex-C to be used by Cadre Controlling Authorities to provide reservation to persons with disabilities, The DoPT has issued notification dated 17.05.2022 providing for reservation in promotion to persons with benchmark 12 OA LTS2016 disabilities in organized Group 'A' Railway Services and as per Railway Board letter dated 25.10.2022 it has been made applicable from panel year 2022, Therefore, the applicant can be considered for reservation in promotion to Group 'A' post only in view of the DoPT instructions dated 17.05.2022 and as per Railway Board letters dated 25.10.2022 and 14.11.2022 for identifying physical requirement and functional classification for Assistant Material Managers for induction to IRSS Group 'A' as per seniority. The identified posts for reservation in promotion are for locomotor disability, leprosy cured, acid attack victims and hearing impaired persons and no post of Assistant Material Manager has been identified for promotion to Group 'A' by providing reservation for blindness and low vision. Therefore, the applicant cannot be provided reservation as per the reservation for Persons With Benchmark Disabilities even as per the DoPT OM dated 17.05.2022. T herefore, the O.A. deserves to be rejected.
4, Analvsis and conclusions :
We have heard applicant in person and counsel for the respondents. We have also considered details in the O.A., rival contentions of the parties raised during the hearing and the caselaws relied upon by them. On carefully considering the O.A. the following 'conclusions emerge:{3 OA.273/2016
$(a). The relief sought by the applicant is not precise. He is seeking promotion to Group 'A' post from 01.04.2005 or earlier as per the roster of 3% disability quota with consequential benefits. Thus before 01.04.2005 from which date he seeks promotion to Group 'A' is not clear, 4(b). The applicant has declared in Para 7 of the O.A. that he had not previously filed any application, writ petition, or sult regarding the matter in respeet of which this O.A. has been filed. This statement is not correct because in Para 6 of the O.A. he himself has declared that he has availed of the remedies available to him under relevant service rules and he has submitted an appeal on 08.10.2004 to respondents for modifying the order of his promotion to Group 'A' as per Railway Board letter dated 11.08.2014 date of his promotion to Group 'A' as well as date of increment in time scale pay to 01.04.2005. While in his own application of 08.10.2014, he sought modification of his promotion order to Group 'A' and date of increment in time scale to 01.04.2005, This relief sought in his application is also at variance with the relief sought in this O.A. in Para 8.
4{c). As per details submitted by the applicant himself and available in the case record, he has received these six promotions -
(@) as Depot Store Keeper-II in 1996;
(ii) as Depot Store Keeper-[in 2001, {ii} as Assistant Material Manager (proforma promotion) from 30.10.2000;
Gv) as Materials Manager:
14 OA 2TM2016 {v) as Sr. Materials Manager on 25.08.2006 (proforma promotion with effect from 18.06.2004); and
(vi) then further promoted as Group 'A' to date of increment in time scale fixed as 12.03.2009, Af). Now in this O.A. he wants antedating of his promotion to Group 'A' from 01.04.2008 or earlier time, Le. from a time when he had not even been granted senior time scale in Group 'B' which was granted to him as per order of this Tribunal in O.A.671/2006 from 64.11.2009 on substantive basis from 23.08.2006 and on notional basis from 15.06.2004. This means now the applicant seeks promotion to Group 'A' from a time when he was not promoted even to senior scale post in Group 'B'.
A(e). This O.A, has been filed on 29.01.2016 seeking relief from 01.04.2005 or earlier date, Since he is seeking relief from the above time he should have approached the Tribunal for this relief without any delay i, atleast during 2006. The explanation submitted by the applicant for __ the delay does not have justification. As per the documents brought on record he was suffering from retinitis pigmentosa and was having cataract as well as glaucoma in his eyes. He was operated for cataract in 2007 and 2015 and has claimed that because of this he could: not approach the Tribunal in time for this relief. Since the cataract is not a disease which cannot be cured by surgery and when he himself underwent surgery in January, 2007 and September, 2015, there was pend Less is & Yd ma es 5 <> eet oy plenty of time available to him for approaching the Tribunal for this relief i.e. for grant of promotion to Group 'A' but he did not approach. This is inspite of the fact that this applicant has been continuously litigating before this Tribunal and other Courts from 2005. In view of these facts his justification for condoning the delay cannot be accepted. Hence M.A.S6/2022 deserves dismissal.
(0). The applicant did not make party to this O.A. any of those other employees / officers whose interest would get adversely affected if this O.A. is allowed. When the respondents raised this objection in their reply about delay and latches in M.A.56/022 and non-joinder of necessary parties, the applicant filed M.A.58/2022 on 04.01.2022 for joining Shri Ramanand Singh, Sr. Divisional Materials Manager and Shri KK. Chaubey, Deputy Chief Material Manager as private respondents in the OLA. Notices were served to these two persons but they have neither appeared nor filed any reply.
Aig). As per order of this Bench of the Tribunal in O.4.617/2006 dated 04.11.2009 the respondents were directed to promote the applicant to Senior Scale post with effect from 15.06.2004 on notional basis and from 23.08.2006 on substantive basis and accordingly he joined on senior soale post from 25.08.2006. Thus when the applicant based on the order of this Tribunal was granted senior time scale in Group 'B' on adhoc basis from 23.08.2006, he cannot claim promotion to Group 'A' from a date 16 OA.273/2016 prior to 23.08.2006.
4(h). The main contention of the applicant is that as per stipulations in DoPT letter dated 18.02.1997 and Corrigendum dated 16.01.1998, provisions of Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Oppertunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, [995 in establishments 3% of persons were to be appointed who were suffering from blindness or low vision, hearing impairment and locomotor disability or cerebral palsy. It fiuther stated that the reservation to physically handicapped persons also stoad extended to identified Group 'A' and 'B' posts filled through direct recruitment. Thus as per these DoPT letters the reservation was in ptomtiotion but only in identified Group 'A' and 'B' posts filled through direct recruitment where the element of direct recruitment did not exceed 75%. Since the applicant was not directly recruited, stipulations in that DoPT letter is not applicable to him as he has been seeking reservation in promotion and was not directly recruited. As per that letter of DoP'T, the reservation was extended to physically handicapped persons only im notified Group 'A! and 'B' posts filled through direct recruitment and this reservation was not available in posts filled up through promotion.
4d). in fact in his arguments, the applicant himself has contended that the above letter was set aside in decisions of High Court and Supreme Court. Therefore, he cannot claim any benefit based on those teed wad GA.273/2018 instructions, 4(j). As per DoPT OM dated 12.05.2016 reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities in Group 'C' and "D' was introduced through DoPY OM dated 20.11.1989, It was only in pursuance to Supreme Court decision dated 08.10.2013 in the matter of Union of India Vs. National Federation of Blind (2013 (10) SCC 772), that directions were issued to Government to compute number of vacancies in all establishments and identify the posts for disabled persons in 'AYBYC! & "Dt groups in identical manner, computing 3% reservation in total number of vacancies in cadre strength. Thus in Supreme Court order dated 01.09.2015, it was clarified that the judgment dated 08.10.2013 related to the manner of computing 3% reservation for persons with disabilities and on the aspect where the post based or vacancy based reservation must be adhered to and the manner identification of vacancies must be uniform in 'ALB OIC & 'D' groups. From the above it is clear that the reservation 1 protnotion for disabled persons came to be provided only after the Supreme Court decision dated 08.10.2013. Subsequently as per Supreme Court decision dated 30.06.2016 in the Writ Petition No.$21/2008 (Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Others Vs. Union of Tadia & Others), it was directed that reservation to Persons with Disabilities should be extended in all identified posts In Group 'A' and 'B' irrespective of mode of filling of such posts. This shows that reservation in promotion for Group 'A' and 1s OA273/2016 'B' has been implemented for persons with disabilities for identified posts and not for all posts in a particular cadre. This further makes it clear that the reservation even in promotion from Group 'B' to Group 'A' cannot be provided for all the posts, it has to be provided only in identified posts in Group 'A' and 'B'.
4(k). Tn view of the above factually clear position, the contention of the respondents is correct. For promotion of Group "B' officers in Stores Department to Group 'A' junior scale of Indian Railway Stores Service against promotion quota, the UPSC holds meeting of DPC and as per recommendations of the DPC received from the UPSC, promotion orders are issued. The respondents submitted proposal to UPSC for such promotion for vacancy years 2012-13 and 2013-14. The DPC considered the proposal in its meeting on 08.03.2014 and name of the applicant was included in recommendation for promotion to Group 'A' junior scale of the applicant on Stores Department were appointed te Group 'A' of IRSS on promotion with effect from 12.03.2014 and their inter-se seniority and dates of increment on time scale were circulated to all the General Managers. For promotion to Group 'A' during vacancy year 2013 the applicant was included and the date of increment on time scale granted to him is 12.03.2009. The respondents have further given benefit of 5 years in antedating seniority in Group 'A' post of promoted officers in which pers 18 OALTHAOL6 the applicant has been placed seniority list of IRSS to 2007 batch. This shows that the applicant has already received seniority on promotion to Group 'A' in IRSS from 2007. Thus after his promotion to senior scale of Group 'B' from 23.08.2006, the applicant has been promoted to Group 'A' from 12.03.2014 with seniority from 12.03.2009, Subsequently because of this benefit of 5 years in seniority in Group 'A', the applicant has been placed in seniority of [RSS of 2007 batch. Thus his seniority in Group 'A' has already been placed in the batch of [RSS of 2007 in Group 'A' after his promotion to senior scale of Group 'B' in 2006.
4(}). Subsequently DoPT issued OM dated 17.05.2022 on the subject of reservation in promotion for persons with benchmark disabilities. In this about the quantum of reservation it has been stipulated that 4% of total number of vacancies in the cadre strength within Group 'C', from Group 'C' to Group 'B' and lowest Group 'A' are to be reserved for benchmark disabilities. Reservation in promotions shall be applicable in the cadres In which element of direct recruitment does not exceed 75%. Out of the 4% reservation, 1% each is to be provided for
(a) blindness and low vision, (b} deaf and hard of hearing, (c} locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims and muscular dystrophy and 1% for clauses (d) and {e}.
4am). it further stipulates about exemption for reservation in promotion, it has been stipulated in Para 3 that as per Section 20(1) of the 20 OA.273/2016 Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment by notification and subject to conditions, if any, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this Section. Accordingly it was stipulated that if any Ministry / Department considers it necessary to exempt any establishment or any cadre or cadres fully or partly from the provisions of reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities, it shall make a reference to the Department of Employment of Persons with Disabilities with justification and the latter Department may issue notification. 4{n). In Para 5 af the OM on identification of posts it has been stated that the Department of Employment of Persons with Disabilities has notified posts suitable for being held by persons with disabilities and physically handicapped and cadre controlling authorities have to give effect to reservation in promotion to the persons with benchmark 'disabilities as per the posts mentioned in Annex-C of that Notification. 4(0). In view of the above DoPT OM, Railway Board has issued instructions on 25.10.2022 that provisions for grant of reservation in promotion to persons with benchmark disabilities shall be fnpliemriontieed in respect of Eight Organised Group 'A' Railway Services/Indian Railway Manager Services (IRMS) and Miscellaneous Services of Indian Railway, while considering promotion from Group 'B' to Group 'A' posts from panel year 2022 and onwards (Civil, Electrical, Mechanical, Signal & ai OA.27T2016 Telecommunication, Stores, Personnel, Accounts é& Traffic) These instructions of the Railway Board make clear that the reservation in promotion from Group 'B' to Group 'A' has been made applicable only from panel year 2022. In view of these instructions on identified service and posits also, it is clear that the applicant is not eligible for the relief he is seeking Le. for grant of promotion to Group 'A' from 01.04.2005 or prior to that, 4(p). In view of the above analysis, we do not find any merit in this O.A. and, therefore, it deserves dismissal because of unjustified long delay and lack of merit.
8. Decision :
The GA, is dismissed, No costs.
(Dr. Bhagwan Sahai) (Justice M.G. Sewlikar) Member (A) Member (J).
H. a VY rs VA %