Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Union Of India And Others on 9 September, 2025
2025:UHC:7995-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Service Bench No. 141 of 2015
9th September, 2025
Dr. (Mrs.) Santosh Ashish ......Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Others ........Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Mohd
Matlub and Mr. Manokam Nautiyal Advocates for the petitioner.
Mr. Devesh Ghildiyal , learned Standing Counsel for the Union
of India/respondents.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram : Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
The challenge in this petition is made to the judgment dated 26.11.2014 passed in O.A. No. 49 of 2011 Dr. (Mrs.) Santosh Ashish Vs. Union of India by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow (for short "the Tribunal"), by which, the original application (hereinafter referred to as 'the application') filed by the petitioner seeking her promotion from the backdate has been rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. It is the claim of the petitioner that she was initially appointed as Manager in Song and Drama Division, 1 2025:UHC:7995-DB Government of India, Ministry of Broadcasting on 18.04.2000. She was placed at Serial No. 6 in the seniority list of Manager/Producer in Song and Drama Division as on 01.01.2002. The petitioner became entitled for promotion to the next higher post of Assistant Director on completion of three years service as Manager/Producer in accordance with Song & Drama Division (Deputy Director and Assistant Director) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 1987. The last appointment on the post of Assistant Director was made in the year 2002 by promoting her senior, who was at serial no. 1 in the seniority list.
4. According to the petitioner, in terms of the memorandum issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) is required to meet prior to the occurrence of any vacancy. It is, therefore, essential that regular DPC meetings are held every year for each category of posts to ensure that an approved select panel is available in advance to fill vacancies arising during the year. The respondents, failed to convene the meeting of the DPC for the year 2003 to 2007. Vacancies for the post of Assistant Director arose on 01.08.2006, 01.09.2007, and 01.11.2007; however, neither was the DPC convened, nor were promotions made by the respondents. The petitioner was subsequently promoted on 15.05.2009. The petitioner contends that she was thereby deprived of her legitimate claim for promotion in seniority to the post of Assistant 2 2025:UHC:7995-DB Director with effect from the date of the vacancy, i.e., w.e.f. 01.09.2007. The petitioner filed the application before the Tribunal, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 26.11.2024. The same is now under challenge.
5. The respondents filed their response to the application before the Tribunal. It was submitted that in the year 2006, the Ministry of Finance did not permit the filling of provisional posts as part of the implementation of the Expenditure Reforms Commission (ERC), which was constituted in 2000 by the Ministry of Finance to examine the rising rate of non-development expenditure by the Government and to recommend measures for downsizing government operations. Consequently, the DPC were delayed due to the recommendations of the ERC. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal observed that the date of promotion is the date on which the promotion is granted, and not the date on which the vacancy arises.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned judgment is unsustainable in the eyes of law. He submits that when the application was initially filed before the Tribunal, petitioner was not aware of the order dated 29.04.2011 issued by the respondents by which the promotion of the petitioner had already been antedated to 01.09.2007. When petitioner came to know about it, her counsel gave a statement and the Application was disposed of as being infructuous by an order dated 3 2025:UHC:7995-DB 24.05.2012. The Tribunal in its order dated 24.05.2012 also observed that if the order dated 29.04.2011 has been issued and implemented then consequential benefit will be paid to the petitioner, positively, within three months. Subsequently, respondent did not give the benefit of the order dated 29.04.2011 to the petitioner, therefore, petitioner moved an application for recall of the order dated 24.05.2012 and after recall, the Application has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 26.11.2014.
7. It is argued that, in fact, on 29.04.2011, the respondents issued multiple orders antedating the promotions of several similarly situated employees. But when benefits of the said orders was denied, the matter was taken before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in O.A. No. 3478 of 2015, Sri V.V. Krishna Sarma vs. Union of India and Others, which was allowed by the order dated 21.07.2023. The respondents thereafter challenged the said order before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 2995 of 2024, Union of India and Another vs. V.V. Krishna Sarma, which was dismissed, subject to a cost of ₹50,000/-.
8. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that a number of similarly situated employees, in respect of whom promotion orders were passed with retrospective effect, have been granted the benefit of such orders, whereas the petitioner has been excluded without any reason. It is submitted that there exists no factual or legal 4 2025:UHC:7995-DB impediment in extending the benefit of the order dated 29.04.2011, by which promotion was given from 01.09.2007, to the petitioner as well. Denial of such benefit to the petitioner amounts to denial of equality and discrimination without any rational basis.
9. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that the Tribunal, while rejecting the petitioner's claim, relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nirmal Chandra Sinha Vs. Union of India and Others (2008) 14 SCC 29. However, it is submitted that the said judgment was cited by the respondent in the application filed by Sri V.V. Krishna Sarma (Supra) before the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, in O.A. No. 3478 of 2015. The claim of Sri V.V. Krishna Sarma was allowed by the Tribunal and it was subsequently affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
10. Learned senior counsel submits that pursuant to the order dated 29.04.2011, approximately 700 similarly situated persons, except the petitioner, have been granted promotion with retrospective effect, whereas the petitioner has been denied the same benefit without any justification.
11. Learned counsel for respondent would submit that promotion is not a vested right.
12. It is positive case of the petitioner that on 29.04.2011, an order was passed by which, the petitioner was given promotion w.e.f. 01.09.2007. In fact, this order has been filed by the petitioner along with rejoinder 5 2025:UHC:7995-DB affidavit. It speaks as hereunder:-
"Order In partial modification of orders of even number dated 15.05.2009 and 11.08.2009, the date of promotion made to the grade of Assistant Director from the grade of Manager/Producer is revised as under:-
Sl. Name Date from Retrospective
No which promoted date from
earlier which
promoted
1. Shri C.P.S. Munda 10.06.2009 01.08.2006
2. Dr. Santosh Ashish 22.05.2009 01.09.2007
3. Shri Baljit Singh 27.05.2009 01.11.2007
4. Shri Mukhesh 02.09.2009 01.04.2008
Sharma
5. Smt. Chitra Sharma 31.08.2009 01.09.2008
6. Dr. N.N. Jha 03.09.2009 01.03.2009
2. The above mentioned officers are entitled for all consequential benefits. This is in conformity with the orders of the Hon'ble CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No. 1074/2006, 1899/2006 and 396/2010 which were complied with in the case of the concerned Applicants in the case. Shri C.P.S. Munda is however, not entitled for revision of fixation of pay as he was granted 1st Financial Upgradation under the ACP Scheme.
3. This issues with the approval of competent authority."
13. It is the petitioner's positive case that Sri V.V. Krishna Sarma was also granted the benefit of promotion with retrospective effect, and when the same was not implemented, he was constrained to file an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, which was allowed on 21.07.2023. A copy of the order was produced by learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of the hearing. It is submitted that the Tribunal accepted the claim of Sri V.V. Krishna Sarma. The order dated 21.07.2023 passed by the Tribunal was subsequently challenged by the respondents before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which dismissed the challenge by its judgment dated 28.02.2024 passed in W.P. (C) No.2995 of 2024.
6
2025:UHC:7995-DB
14. Perusal of the order dated 28.02.2024 passed in W.P. (C) No. 2995 of 2024 makes it abundantly clear that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has not only dismissed the petition, but has also imposed a cost of ₹50,000/- on the respondents. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said judgment are relevant, and the same are extracted hereunder:
"6. Once it is not denied that the respondent was similarly placed as the employees mentioned in the order dated 29.04.2011, there was no justification on the part of the petitioner in refusing to extend the benefit of the said order to the respondent. This conduct of the petitioner needs to be deprecated. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioners have, without any justifiable basis, dragged the respondent into litigation for the last 13 years. In the light of the aforesaid, we dismiss the petition by enhancing the costs payable by the petitioner in terms of the impugned order to Rs.50,000/-
7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted further three months time to implement the orders dated 29.04.2011 in terms of the impugned order."
15. It is an admitted fact that similarly situated employees have been extended the benefit of the order dated 29.04.2011. In the absence of any justification for withholding the same benefit, the denial of such benefit to the petitioner amounts to discrimination and a violation of the petitioner's fundamental right to equality. Therefore, interference is warranted in this matter. Accordingly, the 7 2025:UHC:7995-DB impugned order deserves to be set aside.
16. The Impugned order is set aside. The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of the order dated 29.04.2011 to the petitioner in the same manner and to the same extent as has been granted to other similarly situated employees.
17. The writ petition is allowed, accordingly. (Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 09.09.2025 09.09.2025 Mamta/Ujjawal 8