Himachal Pradesh High Court
Union Of India & Ors vs B.R.Sharma on 15 May, 2015
Author: Rajiv Sharma
Bench: Rajiv Sharma, Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWP No. 8825 of 2013.
Reserved on: 11.5.2015.
.
Decided on: 15.5.2015.
Union of India & ors. ......Petitioners.
Versus
B.R.Sharma .......Respondent.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the petitioners:
For the respondent:
Justice Rajiv Sharma, J.
r to
Mr. Ashok Sharma, ASGI.
Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition is instituted against the order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh in OA No. 945/HP/2011 dated 7.1.2013.
2. Key facts, necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent has instituted OA No. 945/HP/2011 before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, seeking his promotion to the post of Civilian Security Officer (CSO) from the year 1992. The respondent was appointed to the post of Civilian Assistant Security Officer (CASO) on the recommendations of UPSC in the month of May, 1976. The respondent was selected and appointed as Group "B"
officer. He was recommended for promotion to the post of Civilian Security Officer (CSO) vide order dated 14.7.2008 against the vacancy for the year 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:11:17 :::HCHP 21992. However, the promotion was made effective from the year 2008, in which year, DPC was convened. The respondent made representation .
seeking his promotion from the year 1992.
3. The case of the petitioners before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, was that the promotion would be effective from the date of grant and not from the time when the vacancy became available.
4. The learned Tribunal has rightly dispelled the contention of the petitioners herein. The post was available in the year 1992, however, the DPC was convened only in the year 2008. The petitioners have not explained the delay in not convening the DPC in time. There is no fault on the part of the respondent. Rather, there is remissness on the part of the petitioners to constitute/convene the DPC. The DPC should meet as and when the vacancies arise to remove stagnation.
5. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Major General H.M. Singh, VSM vs. Union of India and another, (2014) 3 SCC 670 have held that where the vacancy was available well before his retirement on superannuation and not promoting him would amount to violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Their Lordships have held as under:
"7. It is not a matter of dispute, that the appellant was promoted to the rank of substantive Major General with effect from 7.1.2004. It is also not a matter of dispute, that the substantive vacancy in the rank of Lieutenant General, against ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:11:17 :::HCHP 3 which the appellant was eligible for consideration, became available with effect from 1.1.2007. Even though the appellant .
had nearly 14 months of military service remaining at the aforesaid juncture, the procedure contemplated for making promotions to the rank of the Lieutenant General was initiated for the first time just two days before the date of retirement of the appellant, on 27.2.2008. Although it is the contention of the learned senior counsel for the respondents, that the delay in convening the Selection Board and conducting its proceedings was not deliberate or malafide, yet there can be no doubt about the fact, that the appellant was not responsible for such delay. For all intents and purposes, he was repeatedly seeking consideration orally as well as in writing. He had been repeatedly informing the authorities about the approaching date of his retirement. In response, he was always assured, that if found suitable, he would be actually promoted prior to the date of his retirement. It was for the respondents to convene the meeting of the Selection Board. Since the Selection Board came to be convened for the vacancy which had arisen on 1.1.2007 only on 27.2.2008, the respondents must squarely shoulder the blame and responsibility of the above delay."
6. Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned ASGI for the petitioners has also argued that the Original Application was barred by limitation. The respondent has made a representation seeking promotion from the year 1992. The same was rejected on 12.2.2010. The respondent filed O.A. in the year 2011 itself. Accordingly, there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:11:17 :::HCHP 4 Chandigarh, whereby the respondent has been held entitled to retrospective promotion w.e.f. 1992, with all consequential benefits.
.
7. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.
( Rajiv Sharma ), Judge.
May 15, 2015, ( Tarlok Singh Chauhan ),
(karan) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:11:17 :::HCHP