Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rakesh Kumar Ahuja vs M/O Labour on 21 May, 2025
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA No.1423/2021
with
OA No.872/2021, OA No.873/2021,
OA No.874/2021, OA No.875/2021,
OA No.2137/2021, OA No.2303/2021,
OA No.1899/2018, OA No.3252/2024
Reserved on: 17.04.2025
Pronounced on: 21.05.2025
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
OA No. 1423/2021
Sh. Ali Roshan
APFC (Retd.)
S/o Late Sh. Mam Chand
Age about 65 years,
R/o 229, Gali No. 2, Near Sultan Chowk,
Hindon Vihar, Meerut Road,
Ghaziabad.
.....Applicant
Versus
1. Union of India
Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Labour,
Govt. of India
Shram Shakti Bhawan,
New Delhi.
2. Central Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi.
-Respondents
RAVI 2025.05.23
15:49:06
KANOJIA+05'30'
Item No.22/C-II 2 OA 1423/21 and connected OAs
OA No.872/2021
Dr. K. SENGODAN
APFC (Retd.)
S/o s. KARUPPAN
Age about 66 years,
R/o 14, ASTALAKSHMI NAGAR, Sundarapuram,
Coimbatore-641024.
.....Applicant
Versus
1. Union of India
Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Labour,
Govt. of India
Shram Shakti Bhawan,
New Delhi.
2. Central Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi.
-Respondents
OA No.873/2021
SH. NADIMINTI KISHORE KUMAR
APFC (Retd.)
S/o Late Sh. N. RAMA RAO
Age about 66 years,
R/o FLAT NO.403, BALAJEE RESIDENCY,
Street No.12, Nacharam,
Hyderabad, Telangana.
.....Applicant
Versus
1. Union of India
Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Labour,
Govt. of India
Shram Shakti Bhawan,
New Delhi.
2. Central Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi.
-Respondents
RAVI 2025.05.23
15:49:06
KANOJIA+05'30'
Item No.22/C-II 3 OA 1423/21 and connected OAs
OA No.874/2021
SH. VATTIPALLI MURALIDHAR
APFC (Retd.)
S/o SH. VATTIPALLI MALLINATHA SARMA
ALIAS MALLIKARJUNAIAH
Age about 66 years,
R/o B-BLOCK, G-4,
GREENGOLD APARTMENTS
SANTOSH NAGAR, MALKAJGIRI
HYDERABAD-500047.
TELANGANA.
.....Applicant
Versus
1. Union of India
Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Labour,
Govt. of India
Shram Shakti Bhawan,
New Delhi.
2. Central Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi.
-Respondents
OA No.875/2021
SHRI M. SRIRANGAN
APFC (Retd.)
S/o MASI CHETTIAR
Age about 67 years,
R/o 1099, DR. RADHAKRISHNAN ROAD
TATTABAD
COIMBATORE-641012.
.....Applicant
Versus
1. Union of India
Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Labour,
Govt. of India
Shram Shakti Bhawan,
New Delhi.
RAVI 2025.05.23
15:49:06
KANOJIA+05'30'
Item No.22/C-II 4 OA 1423/21 and connected OAs
2.Central Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi.
-Respondents
OA No.2137/2021
SH. RAKESH KUMAR AHUJA
APFC (Retd.)
S/o LATE SH. H. CHANDRA
Age about 67 years,
R/o Y-2, GF, GREEN PARK (MAIN),
NEW DELHI-110016.
.....Applicant
Versus
1. Union of India
Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India
Shram Shakti Bhawan,
New Delhi.
2.Central Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi.
-Respondents
OA No.2303/2021
SMT. KUKI BHATIA
APFC (Retd.)
W/o SH. VIDYA SAGAR BHATIA
Age about 67 years,
R/o H.N. 947/7, MEHRAULI
NEW DELHI.
.....Applicant
Versus
1. Union of India
Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Labour,
Govt. of India
Shram Shakti Bhawan,
New Delhi.
2. Central Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi.
-Respondents
RAVI 2025.05.23
15:49:06
KANOJIA+05'30'
Item No.22/C-II 5 OA 1423/21 and connected OAs
OA No.1899/2018
1. Sh. N.K. Ahuja (Aged about 72 years)
Asstt. Provident Fund Commissioner(Retd.)
S/o Late Sh. H.L. Ahuja
R/o 71/132/ Prem Nagar,
Janakpuri, New Delhi-110008.
2. Sh. Sant Lal (Aged about 71 years)
S/o Sh. Babu Lal,
R/o C-4F/12, Janakpuri, Delhi-58.
3. Sh. K.L. Behl (Aged about 70 years)
S/o late Sh. Ram Chand
R/o BG-2/20-C, Pashim Vihar, New Delhi.
4. Sh. Ram Chander (Aged 72 years)
S/o Late Sh. Shoba Ram,
R/o A-72, Shyam Vihar, Phase-I,
Road No.2, Near Gali No.8,
Najafgarh, New Delhi-43.
.....Applicants
Versus
UOI & Ors. Through :
1. The Chairman CBT, EPFO,
14, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066.
2. The Secretary,
Ministry of Labour & Employment,
Rafi Marg, New Delhi.
3. Central PF Commission,
EPFO, 14, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066.
4. Additional CPFC,
(HRM), EPFO, 14, Bhikaja Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066.
-Respondents
OA No.3252/2024
MR. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA
POST: APFC (Retd.)
S/o Late SH. H.C. GUPTA
Age about 66 years,
R/o 2/35, Part-I, Roop Nagar,
DELHI-110007.
RAVI 2025.05.23
15:49:06
KANOJIA+05'30'
Item No.22/C-II 6 OA 1423/21 and connected OAs
.....Applicant
Versus
1. Union of India
Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Labour,
Govt. of India
Shram Shakti Bhawan,
New Delhi
2. Central Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi
-Respondents
(Advocates : for applicants : Mr. Suresh Sharma and Mr.
Puneet Rathi) and for respondents Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Ms.
Anupam Sharma for Mr. Gyanendra Singh, Shri Pradeep Kumar
Sharma, Mr. G.S. Virk))
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):-
Since in all these OAs, the claims of the applicants are similar and identical based on the same grounds as well as same issues have been raised for claiming the same relief(s) and that the stand of the respondents is also the same in all these OAs, with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, all these OAs have been heard together and are being adjudicated by the instant common Order.
2. For the sake of writing of this common Order, OA No.1423/2021 is taken as a lead case.
OA No.1423/20213. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:-
i. set aside the Order No.HRM-II/C-
RAVI 2025.05.23
15:49:06
KANOJIA+05'30'
Item No.22/C-II 7 OA 1423/21 and connected OAs
1(90)2018/E/77 dated 18.05.2020 passed by the Respondent Department, alternatively pass, order and direction, directing Respondent Department to grant Notional Promotion from the date of vacancy year i.e. (2011-2012);
ii. pass order and direction directing the Respondent Department to consider the Applicant for relaxation of qualifying service for promotion to the post of RPEC-II (notionally) and grant all consequential benefits;
iii. grant Senior Time scale to the Applicant;
iv. accord all consequential benefits thereafter;
v. award cost of the proceedings;
vi. pass any other order as deemed fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and allow cost in favour of the Applicant.
FACTS OF THE CASE:-
3.1 The applicant was appointed as Lower Divisional Clerk in the Respondent Department on 06.02.1981 in the Sub Regional Office Meerut, Employees Provident Fund Organisation (in short „EPFO‟), under the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India. He was promoted as Enforcement Officer/Assistant Accounts Officer on regular basis on 26.08.1993. The seniority list was made after 16-17 years from the year 2009 for Enforcement Officers and Assistant Accounts Officers, i.e., the feeder cadre for the promotion to the post of Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (in short „APFC‟). The seniority list was made after 16/17 years in the year 2009. It is a matter of record that regular vacancies existed, however, the Respondents RAVI 2025.05.23 15:49:06 KANOJIA+05'30' Item No.22/C-II 8 OA 1423/21 and connected OAs failed to constitute DPC (Annexure A-2).
3.2 The applicant was due for consideration of promotion to the post of APFC and pertinently vacancies existed but the respondents intentionally and deliberately did not take any action for conveying DPC for consideration of the promotion of the concerned employees. The inaction on the part of the respondents was indubitably lackadaisical, negligent and it could be seen that batches of employees were ignored, causing stagnation and oppressive working conditions. It was never the case of the Department/respondents that financial upgradations were being accorded in lieu of the delayed promotions. No reason or justification was forthcoming to harass the employees.
3.3 It is stated that in the year 2010, the applicant was eligible and due for promotion to the post of APFC in the respondents‟ Department. The post of APFC in the Department is filled up by way of direct recruitment through UPSC and from the seniority quota amongst EO/AAO in the ratio 1:1. The eligible Enforcement Officers/Assistant Account Officers on the basis of their seniority are to be promoted to the next higher post of APFC on fulfilling the eligible criteria of 5 years of regular service. For such purpose, the respondents‟ department is mandated to hold a Department Promotion Committee (DPC), every year as per the extant rules and DoP&T instructions. The DPC is to be held every year so that the employees, who are eligible to be considered for promotion and given the existence of vacancies, can be timely given their due. The Respondents‟ Department, however, failed to grant RAVI 2025.05.23 15:49:06 KANOJIA+05'30' Item No.22/C-II 9 OA 1423/21 and connected OAs regular promotion to the Applicant, even though the vacancies existed in the Respondents‟ Department and the Applicant was long eligible.
3.4 Thereafter the applicant was promoted on adhoc basis to the post of APFC w.e.f. 15.11.2010 despite the existence of regular vacancies only for the reason that the respondents fail to hold a DPC. The adhoc promotion of the applicant continued for 1 year 8 months without any reason.
3.5 The applicant vide Office Order No. HRM II/P-
1(2)/11/DPC/APFC/24918-25131 dated 12.11.2012 was accorded promotion on regular basis on the post of Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner in PB-3 of Rs.15600-39100/- Grade Pay Rs.5400/- w.e.f. 24.07.2012 (i.e. the date of DPC) (Annexure A-3). A draft seniority list of APFC was circulated vide Office Order No. HRM-II/S.I(1)2013/378 dated 17.01.2013 (Annexure A-4).
3.6 Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is entitled to Senior Time Scale as granted to other similarly situated employees and the delay in holding DPC was not justified and no cogent reason can be forth coming for the lack of consideration of promotion of the applicant.
3.7 Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that because of admitting the delay, the respondents themselves wrote to the Secretary (L&E), Ministry of Labour and Employment for relaxation of qualifying service for promotion to the posts of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Grade-II (hereinafter referred to as RAVI 2025.05.23 15:49:06 KANOJIA+05'30' Item No.22/C-II 10 OA 1423/21 and connected OAs „RPFC-II‟) and the respondent department vide impugned official order dated 17.03.2015 has not given any valid or genuine reasons in denying the relaxation of qualifying service for the promotion to the post of RPFC-II. It has been simply stated that the Ministry of Labour and employment vide letter dated 11.02.2015 agreed for relaxation for regular promotion upto the penal year 2008-2009 only, but not afterwards. It is thus, the respondents‟ department had treated the applicant with sheer discrimination and with malafides. The respondent department has not given any reason as to why the relaxation of qualifying service of one year eight months & eight days was given in respect of the APFC(s), having been promoted on the regular basis for the panel year of 2011-2012. Therefore, entire action of the respondent department is liable to be set aside.
3.8 Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondent department in its official order dated 28.10.2014 admitted that DPC could not be convened for promotion to the post in APFC cadre due to some administrative reason, but they may be considered for relaxation of qualifying service for promotion to the post of RPFC. However, under such circumstances, the present applicant, who had been promoted as APFC on regular basis for the vacancies year 2011-2012 also suffered delay in the future promotion to the post of RPFC-II. The respondents‟ department had illegally and arbitrarily denied the relaxation of qualifying service for the promotion of the post of RPFC-II.
REPLY OF THE RESPONDENTS:-
4. The respondents in their reply submit that the RAVI 2025.05.23 15:49:06 KANOJIA+05'30' Item No.22/C-II 11 OA 1423/21 and connected OAs reason for delay in convening DPC for promotion to the cadre of APFC under Departmental Promotion Quota is that there are three feeder cadres namely -
i. Enforcement Officers/Accounts Officers (in short „EO/AO‟), ii. Section Officers (in short „SO‟) iii. Private Secretaries (in short „PS‟). 4.1 A DPC to consider officials for regular promotion to the posts of APFC was held on 05.01.2004. That DPC considered promotion from the combined seniority list of EO/AAO/Superintendent as on 03.03.1990. Almost all the officers from the combined seniority of EO/AAO/ Superintendent as on 03.03.1990 were considered by the DPC dated 05.01.2004. Thereafter, there were several OAs filed with regards to the seniority list of EO/AO. For example, OA No.2472/1999 and MA 1124- 1125/2005 filed by Sh. B.P. Jain & others before the Principal Bench of this Tribunal, wherein this Tribunal passed the judgment on 05.12.2006. Further, there were other OA Nos.517 & 664 to 667/2004 filed by Sh. N.K. Ranganathan before the Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal, wherein the Bangalore Bench passed the order on 15.02.2006. In order to comply with the orders in these two cases, there was a need to hold review DPCs'. Hence, a major exercise was to be carried out in different offices of the Respondents. Therefore, the seniority list in the cadre of EO/AO could be finalized by the respondent only on 30.12.2009. Later on some officers were included in the Final Seniority List of EO/AO as on 03.03.1990 vide Office Order No. HRM-III(N)17(01)2001/ΕΟ-AAO/SL/Vol.1/112 dated 01st April, 2011. Thereafter, DPC met on 24.08.2011 to RAVI 2025.05.23 15:49:06 KANOJIA+05'30' Item No.22/C-II 12 OA 1423/21 and connected OAs consider regularization in APFC cadre from 2004-05 to 2010-11. The promotion orders were issued on 30.08.2011.
4.2 As the seniority list in the cadre of EO/AO was in dispute and some officers were included in the final seniority list of EO/AO as on 03.03.1990 vide Office Order No. HRM-III(N)17(01)2001/EO-AAO/ SL/ Vol.I/ 112 dated 01st April, 2011, the DPC could not be convened earlier. After finalizing the seniority lists in EO/AO cadre, a DPC for promotion to the posts of APFC met on 24.08.2011 to consider regularization in APFC cadre from 2004-05 to 2010-11.
4.3 Further, the name of the applicant did not exist in the combined seniority list of EO/AAO (AAO later designated as „AO‟) as on 03.03.1990, as he joined as EO/AO on 26.08.1993. However, when seniority list of EO/AO was finalised vide order dated 30.12.2009, the name of the applicant came at Sl. No 428. All the remaining persons whose name were in the combined seniority list of EO/AO as on 03.03.1990 along with applicant were considered by the DPC on 24.08.2011 for regularization in the APFC cadre for the panel years 2004-05 to 2010-11. As the seniority list of EO/AO as on 03.03.1990 was in dispute, so it was not possible to hold the DPC for regularization in the cadre of APFC earlier. However, in order to provide monetary benefit to eligible officers, including the applicants, the Organization granted them adhoc promotions. In view of this, the delay in holding regular DPC was not intentional but due to litigations that arose in one of the feeder cadre i.e. EO/AO, thus delaying the RAVI 2025.05.23 15:49:06 KANOJIA+05'30' Item No.22/C-II 13 OA 1423/21 and connected OAs finalization of the seniority list in the cadre of EO/AO.
4.5 The respondents submit that in accordance with Recruitment Rules for the post of APFC, the qualifying service for promotion to the post of APFC from the feeder post of EO/AO is 7 years and from the feeder posts of Section Officer and Private Secretary is 5 years and in accordance with the Recruitment Rules, the APFCs are appointed against two categories viz. Departmental Quota (DP) and Direct Recruitment quota in the ratio of 50:50. The DPC held on 24.08.2011 was for vacancy arising during 2004-05 to 2010-11. Further, the applicant was promoted as regular APFC (for panel year 2011-12) vide order dated 12.11.2012.
4.6 The respondents submit that as per Minutes of Screening Committee dated 16.07.2013, none of the officers in the feeder cadre had required regular service in the cadre of APFC. The Competent authority had vide MoL&E order no. A-32013/-01/2013-SS-I dated 25.03.2013 approved for granting of adhoc promotion for filling up of 15 existing anticipated vacancies in the grade of RPFC Gr. II to those APFCs who otherwise fulfill the requisite criterion (Appendix I). Later on the competent authority had vide MoL&E order no. A- 32013/-01/2013-SS I dated 07.06.2013 approved for granting of adhoc promotion for filling up of 13 more i.e. a total of 28 existing/anticipated vacancies in the grade of RPFC Gr. II to those APFCs who otherwise fulfill the requisite criterion.
4.7 In response to the EPFO letter dated 17.02.2014 seeking relaxation of qualifying for 52 APFC(s) who were RAVI 2025.05.23 15:49:06 KANOJIA+05'30' Item No.22/C-II 14 OA 1423/21 and connected OAs placed in panel year 2008-09 & 2009-10, MoL&E had sent a reply dated 05.03.2014 vide which it was requested to examine the root cause for seeking such relaxation in qualifying service. Further, EPFO had sent the reply dated 19.03.2014 (Annexure R-5) in response to the MoL&E letter dated 05.03.2014 (Annexure R-4) vide which detailed justification were furnished to MoL&E. 4.8 The respondents submit that in the matter of Sh. Rajkumar, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dismissed the WP (C) No. 10717/2019 vide order dated 26.11.2019 and directed that: taking all arguments besides above, the Court was inclined that the work of the Respondent for 4 long years as ad hoc ought to be considered at least for Senior Pay Scale. Although we pointed out that till date there is no history of relaxation being granted to anyone for granting Senior Pay Scale. However, the Court was of the view that it would grant that and say that the order is being passed in peculiar facts of this case only meaning that it would not be treated as precedent.
4.9 Lastly, it is stated that the instant OAs deserve to be dismissed by this Tribunal.
REJOINDER TO THE RESPONDENTS CONTENTIONS
5. In the rejoinder, the applicants have besides reiterating the contentions as stated in the OA and refuted the averments of the reply filed by the respondents.
RAVI 2025.05.23 15:49:06 KANOJIA+05'30' Item No.22/C-II 15 OA 1423/21 and connected OAs
6. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPLICANTS COUNSELS 6.1 At the outset, learned counsel for the applicants argued that the applicants in these OAs have sought for quashing of the orders denying the grant of Senior Time Scale (STS) by relaxing the qualifying services of the applicants as APFC, since retired, as granted by the respondents themselves to other similarly placed, considering the inordinate delay in holding DPC without any reason and hence, arbitrarily leaving out the applicants of these OAs before this Tribunal. They pleaded that their cases are squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in OA No.1983/2015, titled Raj Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 25.4.2019 and the same had also been affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide Order dated 26.11.2019 in Writ Petition (C) No.10717/2019 titled EPFO & Anr. Vs. Raj Kumar, which has attained finality as no appeal or SLP had been filed against the same till today. Rather the said Order of this Tribunal had been implemented by the respondents.
6.2 Learned counsels for the applicants further argued that in the feeder cadre for promotion to the post of APFC(s), the applicants were made to wait indefinitely for want of holding DPC(s) and further perpetuated the adversity by not even compensating with Senior Time Scale, while granting it to others for the reason of delay. Ultimately, the Applicants were given adhoc promotions despite the existence of vacancies and the prolonged delay in holding DPC. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicants drew our attention to a chart (containing details of the promotions and dues of the Applicants), which is reproduced as under:-
RAVI 2025.05.23 15:49:06 KANOJIA+05'30' Item No.22/C-II 16 OA 1423/21 and connected OAs CHART SL. PARTICULARS DOA DOA AS DOA AS AO GRANTED ADHOC AS APFC REGULAR PROMOTION AS APFC DATE OF THE YEAR TOTAL SERVICE RENDERED AS UDC/PS RETIREMENT REQUIRED APFC INCLUDING ADHOC OR NO. FOR REGULAR RELAXATION
1. ΟA Νο.872/2021 31.01.1978 14.02.1992 27.08.1992 18.10.2007 (Pg. No.31 S.No.8 vide 24.08.2011 (vide order dated 30.08.2011, Pg. No.33 and his 31.07.2014 1 year 25 6 years 8 months 13 days
-K. Sengodan as LDC order dated 3/4.10.2007) name is at Pg.34 S. No.61). days
2. OA No.873/2021 28.05.1979 1981 August 1992 23.10.2006 (vide dated order 24.08.2011 (vide order dated 30.08.2011 at Pg. No.30 and his 30.06.2014 1 year 55 7 years 6 month 7 days
- N. Kishore 13.10.2006). name at Pg. No.31, S.No.77) days
3. ΟA No.874/2021 21.02.1975 28.03.1977 01.03.1993 21.06.2007 (vide dated order 24.08.2011 (Vide order dated 05.03.2012 at at Pg.54). 31.08.2014 1 year 7 days 7 years 2 months 10 days
- V. Murlidhar 23.04.2013 at Pg.60&61)
4. OA No.875/2021 05.10.1978 March 1982 27.08.1992 13.10.2006 (vide order dated 24.08.2011 (vide order dated 30.08.2011 at Pg. 34 his name 28.02.2014 1 year 6 7 years 4 months 15 days
- M. Srirangan 13.10.2006 at Pg.30 his name at S. at S.No. 79 Pg.36) month No.33 and Pg.31).
5. OA No. 1423/2021 06.02.1981 06.02.1981 26.08.1993 03.11.2010 (vide order dated 24.07.2012 (vide order dated 12.11.2012 at Pg.37 his name at 29.02.2016 4 month and 5 years 3 months 26 days
- Ali Roshan (LDC) 03.11.2010) S.No.15). 24 days
6. OA No.2137/2021 31.01.1978 31.01.1994 07.07.2009 (vide dated order 12.11.2012 (vide order dated 12.11.2012 at Pg.39 his name at 31.03.2014 2 years 7 4 years 8 months 23 days
-Rakesh Ahuja 07.07.2009) Pg No.40. S.No.14 in Panel year 2012-2013). month and 12 days
7. OA No.2303/2021 26.06.1976 July 1997 as PS July 1997 02.07.2009 24.07.2012 (vide order dated 12.11.2012 at Pg.39 S.No.11) 31.12.2013 2 years 7 4 years 5 months 29 days
- Kuki Bhatia as LDC (PS) month 7 days (vide order dated 02.07.2009 at Pg.38).
8. OA No.3252/2024 20.02.1982 1984 31.01.1994 02.07.2009 24.07.2012 (vide order dt. 12.11.2012 at Pg. 49, his name at 31.03.2018 He was He should get Senior Time Scale
- Satish Kumar Gupta December S.No.4, Pg.50, panel year 2012-13) granted w.e.f. 03.07.2013 instead of (vide order dated 02.07.2009 at Senior Scale 25.07.2016 as his adhoc service Pg.42, his name at Pg.44, S.57). Time w.e.f. should be treated as regular from 25.07.2016. the date of regular promotion.
9. OA No.1899/2018 July 1967 27.09.1999 31.08.2006 Completed 5 years on 26.09.2004 (four applicants April 1967 22.12.2000 31.05.2006 Completed 5 years on 21.12.2004 1968 22.12.2000 31.05.2008 Completed 5 years on 21.12.2004 Jan. 1968 22.12.2000 31.01.2006 Completed 5 years on 21.12.2004 RAVI 2025.05.23 15:49:06 KANOJIA+05'30' Item No.22/C-II 17 OA 1423/21 and connected OAs 6.3 Learned counsel for the applicants further argued that the respondents have admitted that the delay had been caused by them as is evident from para 4.5 of the counter reply filed by them and the grant of timely regular promotion as APFC in the year 2011/2012 for the vacancy year(s) 2004-2005 to 2010-2011. However, it is further submitted that the superficial justification of the pendency of the litigation related to the seniority list of the some previous vacancy years is not only negated by the Hon'ble High Court in the matter of Raj Kumar (supra) but also belied by the respondents‟ own remedial action of proposing the relaxation of qualifying service of the employees on account of delay by the respondents in conveying of DPC and not granting promotion. Further, the respondents had admitted the lapse in not holding the DPC in due time and subsequently, respondents vide official letter dated 28.10.2014 made a proposal to the Secretary, Govt. of India, thereby relaxation of qualifying service for the promotion to the post of RPFC-II was made on account of the reasons for delay in holding DPC in the cadre of the APFC as the post of RPFC-II a promotional post which is to be filled up by the respondents amongst the eligible APFCs having 5 years regular service in that cadre and the delay in holding DPC for promotion to the post of APFC further had a cascading effect on the promotional prospectus to RPFC-II. Thus in this background, the respondents issued the official order dated 28.10.2014 (Annexure A-7 at page 79 of the paperbook) thereby a proposal was approved and sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Labour for relaxation of the qualifying service for promotion to the post of RPFC-II and it has been stated that since, admittedly there was a delay in holding the DPC in cadre of APFC and it has been decided and considered for relaxation of qualifying service required for promotion to the RAVI 2025.05.23 15:49:06 KANOJIA+05'30' Item No.22/C-II 18 OA 1423/21 and connected OAs post of RPFC Grade-II. As such the applicants have been singled out arbitrarily, illegally, discriminatory and without any reason.
6.4 Further, there is no dispute about the eligibility and the date of due promotions of the applicants as APFC and that the delay in holding DPC was caused by the Respondents without any reason. However, they have granted STS by relaxing qualifying services to some employees, discriminating against the applicants. This identical issue had been considered by this Tribunal in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) and in para 7 thereof held as under:-
"7. Another anomaly we noticed is that though the applicant was promoted on ad hoc basis in the year 2007, he was shown far below in the list of APFCs, who were promoted on ad hoc basis much later than him. Here again, the record is not much clear. The EPFO as well as the Ministry were convinced that the benefit of relaxation needs to be extended to such of the officers, whose promotions were delayed Irrespective of specific panel year, the applicant does fall into that category. Since the applicant already retired from service, the question of his being promoted by availing the benefit of relaxation does not arise. The issue that remains, is that of relaxation to the extent of 9 months, to enable him to earn upgradation to Senior Time Scale on completion of 4 years of service."
6.5 The applicants have preferred their representations seeking extension of benefits of the said judgments. Since the said representations of the applicants were not dismissed on limitation/delay and hence, the present OA is maintainable in view of the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sualal Yadav Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. [AIR 1977 SC 2050].
6.6 The Applicants are pensioners, who have retired without the benefit of time promotion or STS owing to the fault of respondents and now to allege limitation is a travesty of justice as held recently by the Apex Court in RAVI 2025.05.23 15:49:06 KANOJIA+05'30' Item No.22/C-II 19 OA 1423/21 and connected OAs Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh [Special Leave Petition (C) No.6145/2024], that merits cannot be scuttled solely on the ground of limitation (para 14). Further, it is trite in law that relief should not be denied to similarly situated employees forcing them to knock the doors of Court in view of dicta laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak Vs. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation [Civil Appeal No.4134/2022] (para 15).
6.7 In any case, without prejudice, even otherwise the applicants were entitled for counting of adhoc service if followed by regularization for all practical purposes. In this regard, reliance had been placed on the decision of this Tribunal in para 8 of the judgment rendered in the case of Raj Kumar (supra).
6.8 Learned counsel strenuously argued that the present batch of OAs are squarely covered by the judgment of Raj Kumar (supra) and the denial of the same benefit to fellow pensioners despite admission of delay and for that reason granting STS to a few while excluding the applicants on the alleged ground of limitation is not only taking advantage of its own wrong but would be definitely a case of Justice denied. The applicants have served the respondents with utmost sincerity and technical aspects of alleged limitation cannot be a ground to deny relief which stands admitted.
ARGUMENTS OF RESPONDENTS' COUNSEL
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the applicants prayed seeking senior time scale/regular promotion from APFC to RPFC-Il by relaxation of qualifying service.
7.1 There are three feeder cadres- Enforcement Officer, Section Officers, Private Officer/Accounts Officer, Secretary.
RAVI 2025.05.23 15:49:06 KANOJIA+05'30' Item No.22/C-II 20 OA 1423/21 and connected OAs Final seniority list of EO/AO of 03.03.1990 was in dispute and litigations were pending in various Administrative Tribunals and thus there was delay in finalization of the seniority list. DPC to consider officials for regular promotions to the Post of APFC was held on 05.01.2004. DPC considered promotion from the combined seniority list of EO/AAO/Superintendent as on 03.03.1990. Almost all officers from the combined seniority list of EO/AAO/Superintendent were considered by the DPC dated 05.01.2004. Several OAs filed with regard to the seniority list of EO/AO. Judgment dated 05.122006 in OA No 2472/1999/MA No.1124-1125/2005 filed by B.P Jain & Ors -CAT (PB) ,Delhi and another OA No 517 & 664 to 667 /2004 filed by N.K Raghanathan before CAT/Bangalore wherein Judgment dated 15.02.2006 and in compliance of the same, review DPC 's were held. Therefore seniority list in the cadre of EO/AO could be finalized by the respondent only on 30.12.2009.
7.2 Later on some officers were included in the final seniority list of EO/AO of 03.03.1990 vide Office Order dated 01.04.2011. As per RR's for the post of APFC, the qualifying service for promotion to the Post of APFC from the feeder post of EO/AO is 7 years and from the feeder posts of Section officer and Private Secretary is 5 years. Further as per RRs, the APFCs are appointed against two categories viz Departmental quota (DP) and Direct Recruitment Quota (DR) in the ration of 50:50. DPC met next on 24.08.2011 to consider regularization in APFC cadre from 2004-05 to 2010-11 and promotion order was issued on 30.08.2011. All persons whose names were in the combined seniority list EOIAO as on 03.03.1990 were considered by the DPC dated 24.08.2011 for regularization in APFC cadre. As the list of 03.03.1990 was in dispute, so it was not possible to hold the RAVI 2025.05.23 15:49:06 KANOJIA+05'30' Item No.22/C-II 21 OA 1423/21 and connected OAs DPC for regularization in the cadre of APFC earlier. However, in order to provide monetary benefit to eligible officers including the applicants, the EPFO granted them ad-hoc promotions.
7.3 Further, as per the extant provisions under DoP&T guidelines vide OM No.22011/5/86-Estt (D) dated 10.04.1989, date from which promotions are to be treated as regular is i.e. the date of the validity of the panel, i.e., the date on which the DPC meets or the last date of the meeting of the DPC in case the DPC meets on more than one day.
7.4 Further as per RRs for the post of RPFC-II posts is to be filled up by promotion from APFC (PB-3 with GP Rs 5400/- having 5 years regular service failing which transfer on deputation 7.5 Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that in the matter of Rajkumar (supra) on retirement filed OA No 1983 of 2015 wherein the Hon‟ble Tribunal granted Senior Time Scale to Rajkumar relaxing the 9 months to enable him to earn upgradation to Senior Time Scale on completion of 4 years of regular service. The Hon‟ble High Court vide order dated 26.11.2019 confirmed the Tribunal Order dated 25.04.2019. However, the Hon'ble High Court in the said case in para 17 clarified that the grant of Senior Time Scale to Rajkumar/respondent therein would be in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case alone. However, in the present batch of OAs the applicants after retirement waited for the pronouncement of the judgment in Rajkumar's case (supra) and did not approach the Tribunal for their grievance and filed their application after a long delay, whereas the said Rajkumar had approached the court without delay.
RAVI 2025.05.23 15:49:06 KANOJIA+05'30' Item No.22/C-II 22 OA 1423/21 and connected OAs 7.6 Learned counsel for respondents argued that the issue here is whether the applicants can approach for relief after a long delay seeking parity with the similarly situated applicant, who has pain-stakingly approached the court for redressal. In support of above contention that the applicants are fence sitters, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the following judgments: 1. State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and others reported in (2015) 1 SCC 347 (para 22); 2. K.C Kaushik vs The State of Haryana in SLP(C) No. 5017 of 2023 dated 21.10.2024 (para 9); 3. Shiba Shankar Mohapatra and Ors vs. State of Orissa and Ors., reported in (2010) 12 SCC 471 (para 29), which reads as under:-
"29. It is settled law that fence-sitters cannot be allowed to raise the dispute or challenge the validity of the order after its conclusion. No party can claim the relief as a matter of right as one of the grounds for refusing relief is that the person approaching the Court is guilty of delay and the latches. The Court exercising public law jurisdiction does not encourage agitation of stale claims where the right of third parties crystallises in the interregnum..."
ANALYSIS
8. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and carefully perused the pleadings as well as judgments on which reliance is placed by the learned counsels of the parties.
9. From the aforesaid facts and arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no dispute that the cases of the applicants in all these OAs are squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in Rajkumar (supra) in RAVI 2025.05.23 15:49:06 KANOJIA+05'30' Item No.22/C-II 23 OA 1423/21 and connected OAs which this Tribunal observed as under:
"5. There are three different posts in the feeder category for promotion to the post of APFC, viz., Enforcement Officers/Accounts Officers, Section Officers and Private Secretaries. The applicant states that he became eligible to be promoted on completion of 5 years in the post of SO, which occurs in the year 2006. He was promoted on ad hoc basis to that post on 07.06.2007. It is not clear as to whether he would have figured in the panel year 2007-08 for promotion. The circumstances under which the applicant was included in the panel year 2009-10 are not clearly stated before us. The fact, however, remains that in the correspondence with the Ministry, the respondents have categorically admitted that there was undue delay in convening the DPC and that, in turn, has resulted in delay and caused serious hardship to the incumbents in the context of promotion or upgradation of pay scale. Acting on that, the Ministry came forward with the proposal to extend the benefit of relaxation upto the panel year 2008-2009. This is evident from letter dated 17.03.2015, which reads as under:
"Kindly refer to above cited subject. In this regard, it is informed that a proposal for relaxation in qualifying service for promotion to the post of RPFC-II was sent to MOL&E vide letter dated 12.02.2013. MOL&E vide letter dated 25.03.2013 conveyed that "as these APFCs have been regularized on 24.08.2011 and as much they are even not having half the qualifying service, the relaxation in qualifying service can not be granted". However, they agreed for promotion on adhoc basis for the post of RPFC-II for 15 APFCs and later on vide letter dated 07.06.2013 further agreed for promotion to the post of RPFC-II on adhoc basis for 13 more APFCs keeping in view functional requirement. Again a letter dated 03.12.2014 was sent to MOL&E for relaxation in qualifying service for adhoc promotion. However, MOL&E vide letter dated 11.02.2015 agreed for relaxation for regular promotion upto panel year up to 2008-2009 only."
6. From this, it is evident that Ministry has agreed to relax the relevant rules for promotion upto the panel year 2008-2009. Not a single reason was mentioned as to why the benefit was restricted upto that year. It is not in dispute that promotions were made in a bunch, by conducting a single DPC in the year 2007, for many panels of preceding years.
7. Another anomaly we noticed is that though the applicant was promoted on ad hoc basis in the year 2007, he was shown far below, in the list of APFCs, who were promoted on ad hoc basis much later than him. Here again, the record is not much clear. The EPFO as well as the Ministry were convinced that the benefit of relaxation needs to be extended to such of the officers, whose promotions were delayed. Irrespective of specific panel year, the applicant RAVI 2025.05.23 15:49:06 KANOJIA+05'30' Item No.22/C-II 24 OA 1423/21 and connected OAs does fall into that category. Since the applicant already retired from service, the question of his being promoted by availing the benefit of relaxation does not arise. The issue that remains, is that of relaxation to the extent of 9 months, to enable him to earn upgradation to Senior Time Scale on completion of 4 years of service.
8. There are several judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the effect that ad-hoc service of an employee, if followed by regularization, must be counted for all practical purposes. Secondly, the Government itself has come forward to extend the benefit, by granting relaxation. In our view, the ad hoс service rendered by the applicant needs to be counted, to enable him to get the benefit of Senior Time Scale.
9. We, therefore, partly allow the O.A. by directing that the respondents shall count 9 months of ad hoc service of the applicant, to enable him to complete 4 years of regular service in the post of APFC, which in turn would enable the respondents, to grant him the Senior Time Scale. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs."
10. The above Order of this Tribunal had been affirmed by the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi while dismissing the aforesaid Writ Petition filed by the respondents vide order/judgment dated 26.11.2009. We deem it appropriate to reproduce the relevant paras of the said order/judgment of the Hon‟ble Delhi high Court, which reads as under:
"14. We are unable to understand as to how a person can be appointed on ad-hoc basis in a direct recruitment post, which has to be in the form of lateral entry. Be that as it may, this officer served on adhoc basis in place of a regular vacancy for four long years, and thereafter, till he superannuated he served on the regular post of APFC from 24.08.2011 till 30.11.2014 only to be deprived of his promotion to the post of RPFC (Grade-II) as he was placed in the panel year 2009-10 and not 2008-09 where his juniors were placed. The organisational and procedural delays have definitely caused great injustice to the respondent and even otherwise the communication of 28.10.2014 shows that persons who joined later than the respondent have been placed in the panel year 2008-09 and have been granted benefit of relaxation upto the panel year 2008-09. The communication by Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, Ministry of Labour & Employment, Govt. of India vide letter dated 17.03.2015 is reproduced below :
"Kindly refer to above cited subject. In this regard, it is informed that a proposal for relaxation in qualifying RAVI 2025.05.23 15:49:06 KANOJIA+05'30' Item No.22/C-II 25 OA 1423/21 and connected OAs service for promotion to the post of RPFC-II was sent to MOL&E vide letter dated 12.02.2013. MOL&E vide letter dated 25.03.2013 conveyed that "as these APFCs have been regularized on 24.08.2011 and as such they are even not having half the qualifying service, the relaxation in qualifying service can not be granted". However, they agreed for promotion on adhoc basis for the post of RPFCII for 15 APFCs and later on vide letter dated 07.06.2013 further agreed for promotion to the post of RPFC-II on adhoc basis for13 more APFCs keeping in view functional requirement. Again a letter dated 03.12.2014 was sent to MOL&E for relaxation in qualifying service for adhoc promotion. However, MOL&E vide letter dated
11.02.2015 agreed for relaxation for regular promotion upto panel year up to 2008-2009 only."
15. In this backdrop although the Tribunal has not gone into the issue whether the respondent should have been placed in the panel year 2008-09 or 2009-10, it has rightly decided to give benefit of 9 months relaxation to the respondent since similarly situated persons Ganesh Kumar Jani and S. Murugesan who were junior to the respondent had been placed in the earlier panel year 2008-09; and also that the respondent had worked on ad-hoc basis for 4 long years against the regular vacancy.
16. In these circumstances, we see no reason why the relaxation should not be granted to the respondent. Resultantly, we find no grounds to interfere in the Tribunal's order. The writ petition and the pending application are accordingly dismissed.
17. However, we clarify that the grant of Senior Time Scale to the respondent would be in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case alone."
11. Further, in the above observations the Hon‟ble High Court had categorically held that "14. We are unable to understand as to how a person can be appointed on ad-hoc basis in a direct recruitment post, which has to be in the form of lateral entry. Be that as it may, this officer served on ad-học basis in place of a regular vacancy for four long years, and hereafter, till he superannuated he served on the regular post of APFC from 24.08.2011 till 30.11.2014 only to be deprived of his promotion to the post of RPFC (Grade- II) as he was placed in the panel year 2009-10 and not 2008-09 where his juniors were placed. The organisational and procedural delays have definitely RAVI 2025.05.23 15:49:06 KANOJIA+05'30' Item No.22/C-II 26 OA 1423/21 and connected OAs caused great injustice to the respondent and even otherwise the communication of 28.10.2014 shows that persons who joined later than the respondent have been placed in the panel year 2008-09 and have been granted benefit of relaxation upto the panel year 2008-09...". Further the Hon‟ble High Court observed that "15. In this backdrop although the Tribunal has not gone into the issue whether the respondent should have been placed in the panel year 2008-09 or 2009-10, it has rightly decided to give benefit of 9 months relaxation to the respondent since similarly situated persons Ganesh Kumar Jani and S. Murugesan who were junior to the respondent had been placed in the earlier panel year 2008-09; and also that the respondent had worked on ad-hoc basis for 4 long years against the regular vacancy."
11.1 Same is the situation in the present cases as well. Further the applicants of OA No.1899/2018 have completed requisite 5 years of service in the post of APFC in 2004 to be eligible for promotion to the post of RPFC-II as is evident from the chart prepared above but due to dispute regarding seniority was agitated by certain aggrieved employees as noted above and due to admission of delay in holding the DPCs, the applicants of the said OA 1899/2018 also did not get their legitimate promotion at the time when they were in service, had the DPCs been convened at the relevant point of time, they would have got the promotion to the post of RPFC-II.
12. So far as the contention of the respondents that the applicants are fence sitters and in this regard reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondents is concerned, it is apt to mention that the RAVI 2025.05.23 15:49:06 KANOJIA+05'30' Item No.22/C-II 27 OA 1423/21 and connected OAs Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others vs. Tarsem Singh reported in [(2008) 8 SCC 648], the relevant paragraphs of the judgment is quoted herein below:-
"7. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the re-opening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or re-fixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion, etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. Insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, the High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition.
8. In this case, the delay of sixteen years would affect the consequential claim for arrears. The High Court was not justified in directing payment of arrears relating to 16 years, and that too with interest. It ought to have restricted the relief relating to arrears to only three years before the date of writ petition, or from the date of demand to date of writ petition, whichever was lesser. It ought not to have granted interest on arrears in such circumstances."
7. The aforesaid judgment of Tarsem Singh (supra) has been followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak vs. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, reported in [2022 SCC Online SC 641] in its judgment dated 18.05.2022 passed in Civil Appeal No. 4134 of 2022, the relevant paragraph of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:-
RAVI 2025.05.23 15:49:06 KANOJIA+05'30' Item No.22/C-II 28 OA 1423/21 and connected OAs " 10. At the same time, the law recognises a "continuing"
cause of action which may give rise to a "recurring" cause of action as in the case of salary or pension. This Court in M.R. Gupta v. Union of India [M.R. Gupta v. Union of India, (1995) 5 SCC 628 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 1273] , has held that so long as the employee is in service, a fresh cause of action would arise every month when they are paid their salary on the basis of a wrong computation made contrary to the rules. If the employee's claim is found to be correct on merits, they would be entitled to be paid according to the properly fixed pay scale in future and the question of limitation would arise for recovery of the arrears for the past period. The Court held that the arrears should be calculated and paid as long as they have not become time-barred. The entire claim for the past period should not be rejected. \
11. Relying upon the aforesaid ratio, this Court in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh [Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 765] , while referring to the decision in Shiv Dass v. Union of India [Shiv Dass v. Union of India, (2007) 9 SCC 274 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 395] , quoted the following passages from the latter decision : (Shiv Dass case [Shiv Dass v. Union of India, (2007) 9 SCC 274 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 395] , SCC p. 277, paras 8 & 10) "8. ... The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in its train new injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. It was pointed out that when writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third-party rights in the meantime is an important factor which also weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction.
***
10. In the case of pension the cause of action actually continues from month to month. That, however, cannot be a ground to overlook delay in filing the petition. ... If petition is filed beyond a reasonable period say three years normally the Court would reject the same or restrict the relief which could be granted to a reasonable period of about three years."
***
12. In Tarsem Singh [Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 765] , reference was also made to Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the following passage from Balakrishna Savalram Pujari Waghmare v. Shree Dhyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan [Balakrishna Savalram Pujari Waghmare v. Shree Dhyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan, 1959 SCC OnLine SC 68 : AIR 1959 SC 798] , which had explained the concept of continuing wrong in the context of Section 23 of the Limitation Act, 1908, RAVI 2025.05.23 15:49:06 KANOJIA+05'30' Item No.22/C-II 29 OA 1423/21 and connected OAs corresponding to Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963, observing that : (Balakrishna Savalram Pujari Waghmare case [Balakrishna Savalram Pujari Waghmare v. Shree Dhyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan, 1959 SCC OnLine SC 68 : AIR 1959 SC 798] , SCC OnLine SC para 31) "31. ... It is the very essence of a continuing wrong that it is an act which creates a continuing source of injury and renders the doer of the act responsible and liable for the continuance of the said injury. If the wrongful act causes an injury which is complete, there is no continuing wrong even though the damage resulting from the act may continue. If, however, a wrongful act is of such a character that the injury caused by it itself continues, then the act constitutes a continuing wrong. In this connection, it is necessary to draw a distinction between the injury caused by the wrongful act and what may be described as the effect of the said injury."
13. Accordingly, in Tarsem Singh [Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 765] it has been held that principles underlying "continuing wrongs" and "recurring/successive wrongs"
have been applied to service law disputes. A "continuing wrong" refers to a single wrongful act which causes a continuing injury. "Recurring/successive wrongs" are those which occur periodically, each wrong giving rise to a distinct and separate cause of action. Having held so, this Court in Tarsem Singh [Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 765] had further elucidated some exceptions to the aforesaid rule in the following words : (SCC p. 651, para 7) "7. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the reopening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief RAVI 2025.05.23 15:49:06 KANOJIA+05'30' Item No.22/C-II 30 OA 1423/21 and connected OAs may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion, etc. affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. Insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, the High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition."
***
17. We are also inclined to grant interest to the appellants on the arrears @ 7% p.a., which would be payable with effect from 1-9-2017. We have fixed the said date for grant of interest as the respondent Corporation has accepted the interpretation of the Scheme rendered on 16-8-2016 in the writ petition preferred by Mukeshbhai Jaswantrai Joshi. Normally, and as a model employer, on accepting the said decision, the respondent Corporation should have uniformly applied and granted the benefit to all its similarly situated employees affected by the order dated 28-10-2010. This would have avoided unnecessary litigation before the courts, as was held in State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava [State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347 :
(2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 191] : (SCC pp. 363-64, para 22) "22. ... 22.1. The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.
22.2. However, this principle is subject to well- recognised exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly RAVI 2025.05.23 15:49:06 KANOJIA+05'30' Item No.22/C-II 31 OA 1423/21 and connected OAs situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.
22.3. However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated persons. Such a situation can occur when the subject-matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma v. Union of India [K.C. Sharma v. Union of India, (1997) 6 SCC 721 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 226]). On the other hand, if the judgment of the court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence."
8. Learned counsel is unable to distinguish the case laws relied by learned counsel for the applicants in the cases of Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak (supra) and Tarsem Singh (supra).
9. Keeping in view the aforesaid observations of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and the admitted fact that the cases of the applicants in all these cases are squarely covered by the order of this Tribunal in Rajkumar's case (supra) upheld by the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court (supra) as also implemented by the respondents and this attained finality. At this stage, it is apt to mention that respondent being a model employer, although knew that the cases of the applicants in these cases are squarely covered but they have not taken any action to grant the benefit of the said order of this Tribunal in Rajkumar's case (supra) to other similarly RAVI 2025.05.23 15:49:06 KANOJIA+05'30' Item No.22/C-II 32 OA 1423/21 and connected OAs situated employees like the applicants herein. It is also pertinent to mention that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in catena of cases included in the case of Arvind Kumar Srivastava (supra) on which reliance has been placed by the respondents‟ counsel, the Supreme Court has in paragraph 22.3 has stated that the delay and laches shall not be applicable in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the High Court was in rem, with an intention to give the benefit to all similarly placed persons, whether they approached the Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to extend the benefit thereof to all similarly placed persons, as the applicants in all these OAs are retired employees and have been denied their legitimate right to get the STS as admittedly due to delay on the part of the respondents in convening the DPCs in this regard. We are of the considered view that the instant OAs deserve to be allowed in terms of decision of this Tribunal in Rajkumar (supra).
10. In the result, the present OAs are allowed in the following terms:
(i) The impugned orders in all these OAs are quashed and set aside;
(ii) The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of the order of this Tribunal in the case of Rajkumar (supra) to the applicants in these OAs and accordingly, revise their pension;
(iii) However, we make it clear that arrears of pay on revision of their pay may be restricted only for a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the present OAs; and
(iv) The aforesaid exercise shall be complied with by the respondents within a period of three months RAVI 2025.05.23 15:49:06 KANOJIA+05'30' Item No.22/C-II 33 OA 1423/21 and connected OAs from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.
11. There shall be no order as to costs.
12. Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in other connected OAs as well.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (R.N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/ravi/ks/
RAVI 2025.05.23
15:49:06
KANOJIA+05'30'