Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
O.P. Garg vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi Through ... on 15 October, 2009
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench TA No.1408/2009 New Delhi this the 15th day of October, 2009. Hon'ble Mr. Shanker Raju, Member (J) Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) 1. O.P. Garg, S/o Prabhu Dyal, R/o 198, Gaoutam Nagar, New Delhi-49. 2. G.D. Birla, S/o late Sh. Roodmal, R/o A-136, Vivek Vihar, Phase-II, Delhi-95. 3. K.L. Juneja, S/o Sh. Ratan lal Juneja, R/o 82-F, Pocket IV, Mayur Vihar, Phase-1, Delhi-91. -Applicants (By Advocate Shri Iftekhar Ahmed) -Versus- 1. Municipal Corporation of Delhi through its Commissioner, Town Hall, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006. 2. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Town Hall, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006. -Respondents (By Advocate Shri Duli Chand) O R D E R Hon'ble Mr. Shanker Raju, Member (J):
Applicants, three in numbers, since retired, have sought antedating of their promotion as Assistant Chief Accountant from the date they have passed the SSSA Examination with all consequential benefits, on the strength of an order passed by the High Court of Delhi in Civil Writ Petition No.2274/1981 in O.P. Bhalotra and others v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others, against which LPA No.143/1987 filed was dismissed on 24.8.2000.
2. Applicants, who retired as Budget and Finance Officer and Deputy Chief Accountant, had qualified the SSSA Examination in January, 1982 and January, 1983 respectively. A circular was issued by the respondents whereby it was laid down that as soon as the SSSA Examination is qualified the persons would be considered for promotion, on the basis of which a direction issued in Civil Writ Petition No.2274/1981 by the High Court of Delhi in O.P. Bhalotra (supra), against which LPA was turned down, an office order issued directed compliance. Applicants, being similarly circumstanced, when requested for extension of benefit of the aforesaid decision, it was turned down.
3. Learned counsel of respondents would contend that delay in preferring the Writ Petition by the applicants has lapsed their right and it is only the Examination in the year 1981, which is to be passed to qualify for promotion.
4. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material on record. The circular issued by the respondents is not disputed and it states without referring to the Examination passed that whosoever qualifies the SSSA Examination, his claim for promotion would be considered. As the applicants have qualified the SSSA Examination and are identically situated with that of petitioners in O.P. Bhalotra (supra) and subsequently also retired persons had already been given the benefits in Civil Writ Petition No.2274/1981, non-extension of the same benefit, being similarly circumstanced, without any justification and the contention put-forth that it has been delayed, cannot be countenanced in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in K.C. Sharma v. Union of India & Others, JT 1997 (7) SC 58 and Promotee Telecom Engineers v. D.S. Mathur, 2008 (4) SCALE 815.
5. Resultantly, for the foregoing reasons, TA is allowed. Respondents are directed to accord to applicants post-retirement benefit of the decision of the High Court of Delhi in O.P. Bhalotra (supra) and consider the applicants for notional promotion after passing the SSA Examination. In such an event, their pension shall be revised with arrears, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
(Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda) (Shanker Raju)
Member (A) Member (J)
San.