Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dr H J Chowdhery vs Botanical Survey Of India on 18 July, 2025
1
OA No. 527/2022
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
[Circuit Bench at Nainital]
O.A. No.527/2022
Reserved on: 25.06.2025
Pronounced on: 18.07.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kumar Kashyap, Member (A)
Dr. H.J. Chowdhery, Aged about 72 years s/o Sri K.C.
Chowdhery, R/o H.No.103A, Engineer's Enclave Phase-
III, G.M.S. Road, Dehradun-248001, Uttarakhand.
...Applicant
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of
Environment and Forests, Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO
Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003.
2. The Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel
and Training), 5th Floor, Sardar Patel Bhawan, New
Delhi (NCT)-110 001.
....Respondents
For Applicant: Sh. Pankaj Shrivastava, Advocate.
For Respondents: Sh. T.C. Aggarwal, Sr. CGSC.
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh, Member (J):
The applicant retired Scientist-F, by means of this Application has invoked jurisdiction of this Tribunal under 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the main relief(s) (as extracted from the OA) reads as under:-
"I. To quash the impugned order dated 13.04.2022.
II. To pass an appropriate Order or direction to the Respondent-Department to Anti-date the promotion of the applicant from Scientist E to Scientist-F to the due date 01.01.2004 with all consequential benefits as granted to the applicants in the light of direction given by the Honorable Apex Court vide Judgment and order dated 02.05.2011 in the SLP (Civil) (CC 2 OA No. 527/2022 No.6864/2011 Union of India & Another Vs. S.K. Murti) as well as per direction given in SLP/Civil Appeal No.6359/2016 (Union of India & Ors. Vs. Vinay Kumar) by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 25.08.2021.
III. To pass an appropriate order or direction to the respondents department to hold the assessment for grant of in-situ promotion from Scientist-F to Scientist G with effect from the due date i.e. 01.01.2009.
IV. To grant such other and favourable relief(s) which this Hon'ble Tribunal/Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
V. Award the cost of the application to the applicant"
FACTS IN BRIEF
2. Briefly stated facts as adumbrated by the applicant are that he joined as Systematic Botanist on 01.07.1977 in Botanical Survey of India (in short BSI) now under the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India. He was promoted to the post of Scientist-SD on 01.01.1989 and thereafter got promoted as Scientist-SE on 19.09.2000 (now as on 01.01.1999 as per Hon'ble Supreme Court order), superannuated on 30.06.2009 as Scientist-F in the BSI.
3. On the recommendation of 3rd Central Pay Commission, the Flexible Complementing Scheme (in short FCS) was introduced for Scientific services for promotion from one grade to another after prescribed period of service on merit irrespective of occurrence of the vacancy. The 5th CPC recommendation led to modification of FCS in Scientific and Technological Departments for in-situ promotion of Scientists/technical personnel. On 17.07.2002, DoP&T issued Memo on "FCS" for Scientists in Scientific and Technological Departments stating that the Assessment Board shall meet at least once in a year to consider cases of in-situ promotion, twice in year - before 1st January and 1st July of every year for review of promotion by Assessment 3 OA No. 527/2022 Board/Selection Committee and no promotion from the retrospective dates.
4. The respondents did not consider the case of the applicant and other similarly situated persons and OA No.826 of 2003 - titled Dr. S.K. Murti and 10 others versus Union of India & Ors was filed, the present applicant was also arrayed as applicant no.5 in the said OA. This Tribunal vide order dated 03.12.2003 disposed of the said OA observing that the applicants in their rejoinder have stated that there has been delay in the time bound promotions after successfully qualifying the selection and held that applicants were held entitled for notional promotion from the date of their being declared successful by DPC/Selection Committee and respondents were directed to consider the case being a model employer and the OA was disposed of.
5. One of the applicants, namely, Dr. S.K. Murti in OA No.826/2003, preferred WP(C) No.14263/2004 titled Dr. S.K. Murti versus Union of India & Ors before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi challenging order dated 03.12.2003 passed in OA No.826/2003 and order dated 14.01.2004 in Review Application arising out of order dated 03.12.2003 in OA No.826/2003. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of Dr. S.K. Murti (supra) arising out of Order dated 03.12.2003 in OA No.826/2003 held that Memo requires FCS in- situ promotions to be effected each year and for which circulars mandate that the assessments should be made well in advance keeping in view the crucial dates being 1st January and 1st July w.e.f. FCS in-situ promotions to be effected and respondents not justified in not constituting the Assessment Board/Selection Committee in time and promotion is not one where it has to be effected upon a 4 OA No. 527/2022 vacancy and in-situ promotion would take place granting a selection grade to a person, and the date of eligibility would be the date wherefrom benefits granted to the petitioner reckoned w.e.f. 01.09.1999 instead of 19.09.2000 and arrears be paid within 12 months from today without interest.
6. Respondents challenged order dated 05.10.2010 in WP(C) No.142/2004, Dr. S.K. Murti (supra) before Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors vs. Dr. S.K. Murti. Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) CC 6864/2011- decided on 02.05.2011. Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the order dated 05.10.2010 to promote the respondent with effect from the date of acquiring the eligibility and directed the official respondents (petitioner in SLP) to pass similar orders in cases of similarly situated persons despite the fact that they may not have approached the High Court questioning the order passed by the Tribunal.
7. Applicant became eligible for promotion under FCS w.e.f. 01.01.1999 and on account of delay in convening DPC/Selection Committee, got promoted belatedly to Scientist-SE w.e.f. 19.09.2000 instead of 01.01.1999 and in light of order dated 02.05.2011 in SLP in Union of India & Ors. vs. Dr. S.K.Murti (supra) applicant a made representation to promote him to the post of Scientist-SE w.e.f. 01.01.1999 instead of 19.09.2000, so also effective date of promotion from Scientist-E to F w.e.f. 01.01.2004 instead of 01.02.2008 and for Scientist-F to G we.f. 01.01.2009. Applicant filed OA No.132/23/2015 before Allahabad Bench, which was disposed of vide order dated
20.02.2018, and vide impugned order dated 13.04.2033 that in all the court cases related to ante-dating of promotion, the 5 OA No. 527/2022 stand taken in the SLP filed by Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology till the final decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Vinay Kumar, will be final. The Civil Appeal No.6359/2016 in Union of India & Ors. vs. Vinay Kumar has been decided based on the law laid down in case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Dr. S.K. Murti (supra) and Civil Appeal in case of Union of India vs. Vinay Kumar (supra) and dismissed on 25.08.2021 upholding order dated 30.07.2014 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No.2557/2014.
8. Per contra, the respondent no.1 filed counter affidavit and contested the claim of the applicant stating that there is no delay in processing the application for giving promotions under MFCS and in case of Dr. S.K. Murti, Hon'ble High Court directed to grant benefits of promotion w.e.f. 01.01.1999 instead of 19.09.2000 with arrears and no direction to grant ante-dating of all future in-situ promotion due after retirement of these officials. So also, they have stated that till final decision is taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court on the issue of ante-dating of promotion of Scientists in case of SLP CC No.4155/2016 - Union of India & Ors. vs. Vinay Kumar, nothing can be done.
9. Rejoinder has been filed by the applicant in response to counter reply affidavit denying the adverse averments stating that objections taken by the respondents already stand answered and rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in identical facts and legal issue in case of Union of India vs. Dr. S.K. Murti (supra) and in identical case of Dr. K.P.Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., OA No.498/2012 decided vide order dated 09.02.2023 directing respondents 6 OA No. 527/2022 to consider the case of in-situ promotion of the applicant after retirement with all consequential benefits.
SUBMISSIONS
10. Learned counsel for the applicant vociferously canvassed and the contentions criticizing impugned order dated 13.04.2022 can be summarized as under -
(i) Applicant is seeking ante-dating the in-situ promotion from Scientist E to Scientist F w.e.f. 01.01.2004, due date of in- situ promotion from the date of eligibility with all consequential benefits in light of law laid down in identical case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Dr. S.K. Murti (supra) by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 02.05.2011 and in case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Vinay Kumar (supra) decided on 25.08.2021. The respondents have passed order dated 23.04.2022 pursuant to direction issued on 20.02.2018 by Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal to decide the representation for consideration of applicant's promotion under FCS from Scientist E to Scientist F w.e.f. 01.01.2004 and Scientist F to Scientist G w.e.f. 01.01.2009 with all consequential benefits therein. The respondents have stated with regard to ante-dating the promotion will be based on the final decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sh. Vinay Kumar (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Vinay Kumar (supra) decided on 25.08.2021 based on ratio laid down in identical case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Dr. S.K. Murti (supra) by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(ii) Applicant filed OA No.826/2003 titled Dr. S.K. Murti & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., wherein present applicant was arrayed as applicant no.5 and the same was disposed of 7 OA No. 527/2022 vide order dated 03.12.2003 by this Bench. Dr. S.K. Murti approached Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) 14263/2004, and vide order dated 05.10.2010, the writ petition was allowed to grant in-situ promotion from the date of eligibility with arrears. Respondents approached Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal titled Union of India & Ors. vs. Dr. S.K.Murti (supra) and upheld the order dated 05.10.2010 in WP(C) No.14263/2004 directing respondents to pass similar order for all similarly situated persons despite the fact that they may not have approached the Hon'ble High Court questioning the order of the Tribunal in OA No.826/2003 - Dr. S.K. Murti (supra).
11. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contended and can be summarized as under -
(i) Applicant along with one of the applicants namely Dr. S.K. Murti filed OA No.826/2003 (supra) decided on 03.12.2003, and preferred WP (C) No.14263/2004 before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which was allowed vide judgment dated 05.10.2010 directing the respondents to grant benefits to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1999 instead of 19.09.2000. The respondents filed SLP titled Union of India & Ors. Vs. Dr. S.K. Murti (supra) and vide judgment dated 02.05.2011, respondents were directed to pass similar orders for similarly situated persons and extend benefits to all the applicants in OA No.826/2003 - Dr. S.K. Murti (supra) even if they may not have approached in the writ petition (C) No.14263/2004. There was no order for consequential benefits except arrears of pay, no further action was taken.
(ii) Applicant is seeking ante-dating of in-situ promotion under FCS and vide OMs dated 17.07.2002, 10.09.2010, 8 OA No. 527/2022 21.09.2012 and 09.07.2018, same can be granted prospectively and there is no vested right.
(iii) Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India vs. Vinay Kumar (supra) decided on 25.08.2021 relates to Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the said Ministry have the different recruitment rules and applicable FCS policy prohibits retrospective promotion, hence no parity with ratio laid down in case of Vinay Kumar (supra).
(iv) The delay in grant of in-situ promotion under FCS was due to pendency of case of Dr. Manjurani Routray in WP(C) No. 7080/2005 before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa at Cuttack as the percentage fixed for passing the interview under FCS being excessive.
ANALYSIS
12. This Tribunal has bestowed anxious consideration on the rival contentions of learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the material placed on record as well as considered precedents relied.
THE ISSUE
13. From the above submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and material placed on record, the relevant norms/Scheme and precedents, the short issue arises for our consideration as under -
"Whether the applicant could be given benefits of in-situ promotions under FCS from the date he became eligible for such promotions with all consequential benefits?"9 OA No. 527/2022
14. Before dealing with rival contentions advanced at the Bar, it is apposite to quote relevant portion of the Scheme, judgments binding precedents in cases involving similar facts and issue passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
RULE OF LAW (A) The O.M. dated 17.07.2002 issued by DoP&T on the subject "Flexible Complementing Scheme for Scientists in Scientific and Technological Department- Date of effect of Promotions. For proper appreciation of issue in hand is extracted as under:-
"2. As a matter of fact, no occasion requiring application of promotion with retrospective effect should arise in FCS cases, as it is provided in the rules for scientific posts that the Assessment Boards shall meet at least once a year to consider cases of in situ promotions. Rules notified for scientific posts also contain a provision for review of promotion by the Selection Committee/Assessment Board twice a year - before 1st January and 1st July of every year - and the Selection Committee/Assessment Board is required to take its recommendation on promotions keeping in view these crucial dates of 1st January and 1st July. The competent authority, which has to take a final view based on these recommendations, shall ensure that no promotion is granted with retrospective effect.
Sd/-
(Alok Saxena) Deputy Secretary to the government of India. To
(i) Ministry of Science and Technology.
xxx xxx xxx
(iv) Ministry of Environment, Forests and Wild Life.
xxx xxx xxx
(xi) All other Ministries/Departments of the Government of India."
[Emphasis supplied] CASE-LAW (B) The binding precedents and the settled legal position in identical cases in the facts and legal issue involved in present case, whose impact also debated reads as -
10 OA No. 527/2022(i) Hon'ble Supreme Court in identical case of Union of India & Anr. vs. Dr. S.K. Murti in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) [CC 6864/2011] from judgment dated 05.10.2010 in WP (C) No.14263/2004, directed the respondents to promote similarly situated persons, despite they may not have approached the High Court against the order passed by the Tribunal. The entire judgment dated 02.05.2011 reads as under -
"The delay of 55 days in filing the special leave petition is condoned.
This petition is directed against order dated 5.10.2010 passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent against the order passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short,` the Tribunal') dismissing the original application filed by him for issue of a direction to the petitioners herein to promote him under the Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS) with effect from the date of eligibility was allowed.
We have heard Smt. Indira Sawhney, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent, who has entered on caveat and carefully perused the record.
The respondent, who was working as Scientist Grade-D in the Botanical Survey of India became eligible for promotion under FCS with effect from 1.1.1999. However, on account of delayed convening of the Departmental Review Committee/Selection Committee, his promotion was delayed and by an order dated 20.10.2000, he was promoted with effect from 19.9.2000.
The respondent and 10 other Scientists of Botanical Survey of India filed Original Application No. 826/203 for directing the petitioners to promote them with effect from the date of eligibility, i.e. 1.1.1999. The Tribunal dismissed the original application and held that in view of the clarification given in O.M. Dated 10.11.1998, the applicants were not entitled to 11 OA No. 527/2022 promotion with retrospective effect.
The review petition filed by the respondent was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 14.1.2004. However, Writ Petition (C) No.14263/2004 filed by the respondent was allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court and the petitioners were directed to give him all the benefits on the basis of deemed promotion with effect from 1.1.1999.
In our view, reasons assigned by the High Court for directing the petitioners to promote the respondent with effect from the date of acquiring the eligibility are legally correct and the impugned order does not suffer from any legal error warranting interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.
It is not in dispute that vacancies existed when the Departmental Review Committee considered the case of the respondent and other similarly situated persons for promotion. It is also not in dispute that in terms of paragraph 51.25 of the Vth Pay Commission Recommendations, the Departmental Review Committee/ Assessment Board was required to meet every six months, i.e. in January and July and the promotions were to be made effective from the date of eligibility. Therefore, it is not possible to find any flaw in the direction given by the High Court.
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
Since the time fixed by the High Court for compliance of the direction given by it has already expired, we direct the petitioners to do the needful within four weeks from today. Similar order shall be passed for all similarly situated persons despite the fact that they may not have approached the High Court questioning the order passed by the Tribunal. This direction is being given to avoid further litigation in the matter."
[Emphasis supplied]
(ii) Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Vinay Kumar in Civil Appeal No.6359/2016, 12 OA No. 527/2022 arising out of judgment dated 30.07.2024 in WP(C) 2357/2014, whereby Hon'ble High Court of Delhi upheld the decision of the Tribunal while placing reliance on decision in case of Union of India & Ors vs. S.K. Murti (supra). The relevant paragraph 6, 7, 11, 12, 13 and 14 read under:-
"6. In S.K. Murti, the High Court was called upon to consider the effect of delay occasioned as a result of non-constitution of the Assessment Board/ Committee in time. The High Court found that the concerned candidate having become eligible, the delay on part of Assessment Board/Committee could not deprive him of his entitlement and as such the benefit ought to be reckoned with effect from the date of his eligibility.
7. It must be noted that the decision of the Division Bench in S.K. Murti was challenged in this Court in SLP (C) No.6864 of 2011 which challenge was rejected with following observations:
"The respondent, who was working as Scientist Grade-D in the Botanical Survey of India became eligible for promotion under FCS with effect from 1.1.1999. However, on account of delayed convening of the Departmental Review Committee/Selection Committee, his promotion was delayed and by an order dated 20.10.2000, he was promoted with effect from 19.9.2000.
The respondent and 10 other Scientists of Botanical Survey of India filed Original Application No.826/2003 for directing the petitions to promote them with effect from the date of eligibility i.e. 1.1.1999. The Tribunal dismissed the original application and held that in view of the clarification given in O.M. dated 10.11.1998, the applicants were not entitled to promotion with retrospective effect. The review petition filed by the respondent was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated
14.01.2004. However, Writ Petition (C) No.14263/2004 filed by the respondent was allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court and the petitioners were directed to give him all the benefits on the basis6 of deemed promotion with effect from 1.1.1999.
13 OA No. 527/2022In our view, reasons assigned by the High Court for directing the petitioners to promote the respondent with effect from the date of acquiring the eligibility are legally correct and the impugned order does not suffer from any legal error warranting interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.
It is not in dispute that vacancies existed when the Departmental Review Committee considered the case of the respondent and other similarly situated persons for promotion. It is also not in dispute that in terms of paragraph 51.25 of the Vth Pay Commission Recommendations, the Departmental Review Committee/Assessment Board was required to meet every six months, i.e. in January and July and the promotions were to be made effective from the date of eligibility. Therefore, it is not possible to find any flaw in the direction given by the High Court.
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed."
11. Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned Additional Solicitor General for the appellant submitted that the decisions of the High Court were incorrect and the entitlement of the concerned candidates would be only after the date of assessment by the Assessment Board/Committee.
12. Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned Senior Advocate appearing for some of the respondents submitted that in terms of Policy Documents dated 19.9.2016 and 12.02.2019, all the11 benefits were required to be and as a matter of fact had been made over or extended to the concerned respondents.
13. The decision presently under challenge was based on the earlier decision rendered by the High Court in S.K. Murti which was affirmed by this Court. The view taken by the High Court that the interest of the concerned Scientists could not be put to prejudice as a result of delay in constituting the Assessment Committee in time, was affirmed by this Court. The subsequent office memoranda dated 19.9.2016 and 12.02.2019 carry and seek to implement the same principle.
14. In the circumstances, we see no reason to take a different view in the matter. Affirming the view taken by the High Court which is presently under challenge, we dismiss this Civil Appeal No.6359 of 2016 without any order as to costs.
[Emphasis supplied] 14 OA No. 527/2022
(iii) In case of Union of India & Anr. vs. Dr. Anjum Rizvi in WP(C) No.5317/2018 and Union of India & Anr. Vs. W.Bharat Singh & Ors., WP(C) No.7171 of 2018, vide common order dated 24.08.2022, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, in identical cases upheld the decision of this Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition. Relevant paragraphs 19 to 26 reads as under:-
"19. The Supreme Court in Vinay Kumar (supra) after considering the above referred OMs has held that the view taken by the High Court in S.K. Murti (supra), which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, that the interest of the concerned Scientists could not be put to prejudice as a result of delay in constituting the Assessment Committee in time had been affirmed in S.K. Murti (supra) and thus, the Supreme Court was of the view that there was no reason to take a different view in the matter.
20. As noticed hereinabove, the case of the respondents is identical to that of the petitioners to that Dr. S.K. Murti (supra) and Vinay Kumar (supra).
21. Reference drawn by learned counsel for the petitioners to Sub- Rule 12, 14 and 15 of the Recruitment Rules is of no consequence for the reason that in similar circumstances, where the Department rules provided that the promotion would be prospective from the date of approval by the Competent Authority, it has been held in S.K. Murti (supra) and in Vinay Kumar (supra) that the dates 1st January and 1st July for constituting the Assessment Board/ Committee are mandatory and the Department has to constitute the Boards so that no prejudice is caused to the concerned officers. Department cannot take benefit of the delay in constituting the Board on the prescribed dates as the officers who are eligible for consideration cannot be denied promotion solely on the ground that the Board was not constituted in time as mandated by the rules.
22. Further, as noticed hereinabove, the Recruitment Rules referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner itself stipulates that the assessment 'shall' be done twice a year and the cases maturing for promotion during January to June 'shall' be taken up for assessment in the month of July of that year and cases maturing for promotion during July to December of a year 'shall' be taken up for assessment in the month of January of the next year.15 OA No. 527/2022
23. The fact that the expression 'shall' has been used shows that it is mandatory on the part of the Department to constitute the Boards for conducting the assessment within the stipulated period.
24. In the present case, there is no fault attributed to the respondents for delay in consideration of their respective cases. The only reason is that the Board was not constituted within time and that cannot be a ground to deny the promotion from the date the concerned officers became eligible as has been held in Dr. S.K. Murti (supra) and in Vinay Kumar (supra).
25. In view of the above, we find no merit in the petitions. The petitions along with pending applications are consequently dismissed.
26. Petitioners are directed to implement the impugned decision of the Tribunal dated 21.02.2017 (W.P.(C) 5317/2018) and 10.03.2017 (W.P.(C) 7171/2018) expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from today."
[Emphasis supplied]
(iv) In identical facts and legal issue in cases of similarly placed scientists working in the Establishment of respondent no.1 and in the case in our hand, the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, Bench at Mumbai in case of R.M. Sharma & Ors. vs. Ministry of Environment in OA No.106 of 2013 decided on 26.10.2023 considering ratio laid down in identical case in case of R.R. Bakade vs. Ministry of Environment & Forest in OA No.2549/2015, the Principal Bench of this Tribunal vide order dated 04.01.2023, allowed the OA. The relevant paragraph 4.1 to 5.1 for ready reference reads as under-
"4.1 We find that the similar issue has been decided by the Principal Bench in OA No.2549/2015 in the case of R.R. Bake The Secretary, M/o Environment and Forest & Others vide their order dated 04.01.2023 wherein after discussing the various decisions of Tribunal, High Court and that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Principal Bench has allowed the appeal of the applicant. For the sake of convenience, concluding part of the above decision is reproduced as under:-16 OA No. 527/2022
"13. The reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in RA No.157/2017 in OA No.2894/2012 in Union of India & Anr. v. Vinod Kumar Jain & Ors. (supra) by the respondents to contend that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is a judgment in personam and hence cannot be extended to all similarly placed persons, is of no help in view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held the same as a judgment in rem. We are of the considered view that a decision of the Supreme Court is binding on all Courts/Tribunals. By Article 141 of the Constitution of India it is laid down that the law declared by the Supreme Court 25 OA No.2549/2015 shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.
14. In view of the dicta of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinay Kumar (supra), and also for parity of reasons, we allow this O.A. and direct the respondents to ante date the award of promotion to the next grade to the applicant under the FCS from the date of eligibility keeping in view the decisions of this Tribunal in S.K. Murti (supra) as upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The applicant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits, including refixation of pay, pension and arrears thereof, in accordance with the relevant rules and law. These directions shall be complied with by the respondents within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
4.2 As the Principal Bench of the Tribunal has recently while referring to the entire case law on the subject has allowed the claims of the applicants therein, we shall take advantage of that decision and desist from labouring any further as we see no reason to take a different view.
5. In view of the above facts, the OA is allowed. The respondents are directed to release to the applicants the financial benefits of the antedated in situ promotion in each grade under the flexible complementing scheme effective from the due dates as per Office Order No.24/2014 dated 25.02.2014.
5.1 The applicants shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits including refixation of pay, pension and arrears in accordance with the relevant rules. These directions be complied with within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
[Emphasis supplied] 17 OA No. 527/2022
(v) Case of Dr. K.P. Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. in OA No.498/2012 decided on 09.02.2023 by co-ordinate Bench, Bench at Allahabad in light of decision given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India & Anr. vs. Dr. S.K. Murti (supra), in our considered view, the case of the applicant in our hand is also identical in the facts and legal issue deserves same treatment. Relevant paragraphs 7 and 8 reads as under:-
"7. In similar facts and circumstances, Hyderabad bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No.626 of 2012 (Dr. S.Z.Siddiqui Vs. Union of India and others decided on 24.7.2015) directed the respondents to promote the applicant from the post of Scientist C to Scientist D w.e.f. 29.1.2006 and from Scientist D to Scientist E w.e.f. 29.1.2010 with all consequential benefits. It is admitted fact that applicant was given promotion as Scientist E w.e.f. 1.1.1999, his next promotion as Scientist F was due on 1.1.2004 and further next promotion as Scientist G was due on 1.1.2009 but the same was not given to him. Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court never said that only one promotion will be given w.e.f. 1.1.1999. Once a promotion is given w.e.f. 1.1.1999, his next promotion is due after completion of residency period of 5 years. Case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant fully supports the case of the applicant. Hence, the court is of the view that O.A. is liable to be allowed.
8. Accordingly, O.A. is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of applicant for promotion to Scientist F w.e.f. 1.1.2004 instead of 1.2.2008 and next promotion of Scientist G w.e.f. 1.1.2009 which has not been given to the applicant due to retirement of applicant on 28.2.2010 and grant all the consequential benefits to the applicant. This exercise shall be completed within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order."
[Emphasis supplied]
15. Admitted fact in the case in the case in hand, as stated by the respondents in synopsis/written submissions dated 03.07.2025, that there was delay in assessment and conducting the annual review promotion attributed due to the order dated 26.09.2008 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in case of Dr. Manjurani Routray vs. Union of India in WP(C) No.7080/2015, declaring the 18 OA No. 527/2022 percentage fixed for passing interview under FCS to be excessive and thus invalid and same led to the promotion process being put on hold and respondents could proceed by virtue of interim order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Manjurani Routray in SLP(C) No.7100/2009 whereas in DOP&T OM dated 17.07.2002 already extracted in preceding paragraph and in other OMs, it was clearly laid down that the assessment must be taken as on 1st January and 1st January every year and the selection Committee/Assessment Board is required to make its recommendation on promotions keeping in view these crucial dates of 1st January and 1st July wherefrom the FCS Scheme in-situ promotion have to be effected. Hon'ble Supreme Court in identical case arising from OA No.826/2003, decided on 03.12.2003, titled Dr. S.K. Murti & 10 Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., admittedly the present applicant was applicant no.5 in the said OA. The applicant did not challenge order dated 03.12.2003 in WP(C) 14263/2004, S.K. Murti (supra) and in SLP titled Union of India & Ors. Vs. S.K. Murti (supra).
16. Undisputedly, Hon'ble Supreme court in case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. S.K. Murti (supra) vide judgment dated 02.05.2011, as extracted herein above, Their Lordships upheld the view of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No.14263/2004, dated 05.10.2010 that instant case of promotion is not one where promotion has to be effected upon a vacancy arising, subject to being found suitable the petitioner was entitled to be promoted in situ the situation would be taken to granting a selection scale to a person and date of eligibility would be the date wherefrom the benefit has to be accorded with arrears. So also Their Lordships in the SLP Union of India & Ors. vs. S.K. Murti (supra) 19 OA No. 527/2022 directed the respondents to pass similar order for all the similarly situated persons, despite the fact that they may not have approached High Court questioning the order passed by the Tribunal i.e. OA No.826/2003 "S.K. Murti & 10 others (supra). So also respondents decided on 13.04.2022 representations dated 03.09.2021 of the applicant pursuant to order passed by the Bench at Allahabad, claiming ante- dating of his promotion under FCS from Scientist E to Scientist F w.e.f. 01.01.2004 and Scientist F to Scientist G w.e.f. 01.01.2009 and all consequential benefits. Respondents, admittedly stated in order dated 13.04.2022 (Annexure No.1) that DoP&T has advised the respondent no.1 vide order dated 03.01.2018, to defend all court cases in relation to ante-dating of promotion till final decision of Supreme Court in case of Shri Vinay Kumar. So also Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Vinay Kumar (supra) has passed judgment dated 25.08.2021. Considering ratio laid down in case of Union of India vs. S.K. Murti (supra) granting all benefits.
17. Now once again coming to the facts of the case in our hand that the applicant was promoted from the post of Systematic Botanist to the post of Scientist D on 01.01.1989. There is minimum residency period of four years to be eligible for in situ promotion under FCS from the post of Scientist D to Scientist E and promoted on 19.09.2000. Later on as per Hon'ble Supreme Court, the applicant was promoted for in situ promotion w.e.f. 01.01.1999 for Scientist-E.
18. So also, there is residency period of five years for in situ promotion under FCS for promotion from Scientist E to Scientist F w.e.f. 01.01.2004 and for Scientist-G w.e.f. 01.01.2009 and as per OMs on FCS and law laid down in 20 OA No. 527/2022 similar case in case of Union of India vs. S.K. Murti (supra) and Union of India vs. Vinay Kumar (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the OMs of DOPT for grant of in situ promotion under FCS/MFCS. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in aforesaid similar cases i.e. S.K. Murti and Vinay Kumar (supra), has upheld directions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to promote employees under FCS with effect from the date of eligibility and give them all benefits as the departmental Review Committee/ Assessment Board was required to meet every six month i.e. 1st January and 1st July and the promotions were to be made effective from the date of eligibility.
19. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of S.K. Murti (supra) directed respondents to pass orders for all similarly situated persons despite the fact that they may not have approached the High Court questioning the order passed by the Tribunal.
20. Respondents have stated in the impugned order dated 13.04.2022 served on the applicant that his case for ante- dating of his in situ promotion under FCS from Scientist D to Scientist E w.e.f. 01.01.1999 and from Scientist E to Scientist F w.e.f. 01.01.2004 and from Scientist F to Scientiest G w.e.f. 01.01.2009 with all consequential benefits thereon shall be considered in light of final decision in case of Shri Vinay Kumar (Supra).
21. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Vinay Kumar (supra) considered OMs on FCS and held that the promotions must be given effect from as on 1st January/1st July of the eligibility year and endorsed view taken in case of S.K. Murti (supra).
21 OA No. 527/202222. For all the reasons stated hereinabove, in case in our hand, applicant is entitled for in situ promotion after acquiring eligibility of minimum four years residency as per FCS for promotion from Scientist D to Scientist E and vested right accrued to ante-date in situ promotion for post of Scientist E w.e.f. 01.01.1999 instead of 01.09.1999 and after five years of minimum residency period entitled for ante- dating promotion as Scientist F w.e.f. 01.01.2004 and Scientist F to Scientist G w.e.f. 01.01.2009 with all consequential benefits.
23. Hon'ble Supreme Court in identical case in facts and legal issue in case of S.K. Murti (supra) and in pari-materia in case of Vinay Kumar (supra) has declared law and same is binding on all courts/Tribunals under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
24. The gist of the contentions of learned counsel for the respondents that in situ promotion as per DOPT OMs dated 17.07.2022, 10.09.2010 and 21.09.2012 and 09.07.2018 to be granted prospectively and delay in convening DPC was due to pendency of case of Dr. Manjurani Routray (supra) before Hon'ble High Court of Orissa at Cuttack and hence date of in situ promotion cannot be granted retrospectively.
25. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in identical case of S.K. Murti (supra) in WP(C) No.14263/2004 has held that Memo requires FCS in situ promotion to be effected each year and for which the Circular mandates that the assessments should be made well in advance keeping in view the crucial dates being 1st January and 1st July w.e.f. wherefrom the FCS in situ promotion have to be effective and thus the answer to the first limb of contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the date of eligibility 1st 22 OA No. 527/2022 January and 1st July each year are crucial dates to effect promotions and respondents not constituted Selection Committee cannot take advantage of own wrongs.
26. The legal issue in hand in present case also stands qualified by judicial pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court in identical case of Union of India & Ors. vs. S.K. Murti (supra) an Union of India vs. Vinay Kumar (supra). So also in case of Union of India vs. Dr. Anjum N. Rizvi (supra); by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and in case of R.R. Bakde vs. Union of India (supra), Shri R.M. Sharma vs. Union of India (supra) and in case of Dr. K.P. Singh (supra) passed by Co-ordinate Benches of this Tribunal and in identical OA No.524/2022 - Dr. J.R. Sharma vs. Ministry of Environment and Forest by Circuit Bench at Nainital decided on 16.07.2025 allowed the said OA, and the issue is no more res integra.
CONCLUSION
27. We have already analyzed in detail the issue and finding on the issue is decided in favour of the applicant and applicant is held entitled for in situ promotion from the date of eligibility with all consequential benefits.
28. Impugned order dated 13.04.2022 is quashed and set aside.
29. Respondents are directed to verify and consider the case of applicant for in situ promotion from the date of eligibility to Scientist F with effect from 01.01.2004 and Scientist-G with effect from 01.01.2009 with all consequential benefits including re-fixation of pay, pension and arrears in accordance with the relevant rules.
23 OA No. 527/202230. Respondents are directed to implement these directions expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order passed today.
31. Resultantly, the Original Application is accordingly allowed to the extend indicated hereinabove and disposed of.
32. There shall be no order as to costs.
33. As a sequel thereof, pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.
(Rajinder Kumar Kashyap) (Ajay Pratap Singh) Member (A) Member (J) /na/