Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri P.G. George vs Union Of India Through on 22 April, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA No. 1409/2009 with OAs No.3354/2009, 3355/2009, 3356/2009 3357/2009, 3358/2009, 3359/2009 & 3360/2009 New Delhi, this the 22nd day of April, 2010 HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE MR. L.K.JOSHI, VICE CHAIRMAN (A) OA 1409/2009 Shri P.G. George, B-7, Fine Home Apartment, Plot No. 15, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi-110091 Applicant (By Advocate: Ms. Raman Oberoi) Versus 1. Union of India through The Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training, CS-I Division, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi 2. Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001 Respondents (By Advocate: Shri R.N. Singh) OA 3354/2009 Sewa Ram, S/o Shri Banarsi Dass, R/o F-59, West Jawahar Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092 Applicant (By Advocate: Shri L.R. Khatana) Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary to the Govt. of India, Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions, North Block, New Delhi-110001 2. Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110011 Respondents (By Advocate: Shri R.N. Singh) OA 3355/2009 R.S. Sirohiwal, S/o late Shri Bodu Ram, R/o B-103, Seema Apartments, Plot No. 7, Sector-11 Dwarka, New Delhi-110075 Applicant (By Advocate: Shri L.R. Khatana) Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary to the Govt. of India, Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions, North Block, New Delhi-110001 2. Secretary, Deptt. of Agriculture & Cooperation, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi-110001 Respondents (By Advocate: Shri R.N. Singh) OA 3356/2009 B.P. Singh, S/o late Shri Chandan Singh, R/o 5/1656, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad (UP) Applicant (By Advocate: Shri L.R. Khatana) Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary to the Govt. of India, Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions, North Block, New Delhi-110001 2. Secretary, Ministry of Culture, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001 Respondents (By Advocate: Shri R.N. Singh) OA 3357/2009 Santosh Kumar Kakkar S/o late Shri Sita Ram, R/o 7, National Park, IInd Floor, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi-110024 Applicant (By Advocate: Shri L.R. Khatana) Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary to the Govt. of India, Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions, North Block, New Delhi-110001 2. Secretary, Ministry of Coal, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001 Respondents (By Advocate: Shri R.N. Singh) OA 3358/2009 Anil Kumar Varma, S/o late Shri Shanti Swaroop Varma, R/o 202, Kumudi Apartment, Plot No. 11, Pocket No. 6, Nasirpur, Dwarka Kunj, New Delhi-110045 Applicant (By Advocate: Shri L.R. Khatana) Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary to the Govt. of India, Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions, North Block, New Delhi-110001 2. Secretary, Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001 Respondents (By Advocate: Shri R.N. Singh) OA 3359/2009 A.K. Das, S/o late Shri Aswini Kumar Das, R/o D-151, B.K. Dutt Colony, (near Satsang Temple), Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003 Applicant (By Advocate: Shri L.R. Khatana) Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary to the Govt. of India, Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions, North Block, New Delhi-110001 2. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi-110001 Respondents (By Advocate: Shri R.N. Singh) OA 3360/2009 Miss Saroj, D/o Shri Rattan Lall, R/o 17, Type-4, Sector-3, Sadiq Nagar, New Delhi-110049 Applicant (By Advocate: Shri L.R. Khatana) Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary to the Govt. of India, Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions, North Block, New Delhi-110001 2. Secretary, Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110003 Respondents (By Advocate: Shri R.N. Singh) ORDER
Mr. L.K. Joshi, Vice Chairman(A) As these OAs are founded on the same basis of facts and law, we are disposing of these OAs by this common order, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. For convenience, facts have been extracted from OA number 1409/2009.
2. The question before us for consideration is whether the retired employees of the Government would be eligible for notional promotion retrospectively, if the meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee, held after their retirement, considers them fit for promotion and persons junior to them in service are promoted retrospectively from the dates, when such retired employees were in service.
3. The Applicant joined the Government of India in the cadre of Central Secretariat Service (CSS) as Assistant on 25.08.1973 and rose to become Section Officer and then Under Secretary. The Applicant retired as Under Secretary on superannuation on 31.10.2008. The Department of Personnel and Training (DOP&T) issued on 30.01.2009 a Select List of Grade I officers of the CSS considered fit for inclusion in the Selection Grade (Deputy Secretary) of CSS for 2006. This Select List was based on the recommendations of the Selection Committee, which had met on 22.01.2009. By virtue of the Office Memorandum (OM) number 22011/4/98-Estt (D), dated 12.10.1998, the retired persons were considered by the Selection Committee and names of those who were found fit were included in the Select List. The aforesaid OM is reproduced below:
Procedure to be followed by the Departmental Promotion Committees in regard to retired employees
2. Doubts have been expressed in this regard as to the consideration of employees who have since retired but would also have been considered for promotion, if the DPC(s) for the relevant year(s) had been held in time.
3. The matter has been examined in consultation with the Ministry of Law (Department of Legal Affairs). It may be pointed out in this regard that there is no specific bar in the aforesaid Office Memorandum, dated April 10, 1989 or any other related instructions of the Department of Personnel and Training for consideration of retired employees, while preparing yearwise panel(s), who were within the zone of consideration in the relevant year(s). According to legal opinion also, it would not be in order, if eligible employees, who were within the zone of consideration for the relevant year(s) but are not actually in service when the DPC is being held, are not considered while preparing yearwise zone of consideration/panel and, consequently, their junior are considered (in their places) who would not have been in the zone of consideration, if the DPC(s) had been held in time. This is considered imperative to identify the correct zone of consideration for relevant year(s). Names of the retired officials may also be included in the panel(s). Such retired officials would, however, have no right for actual promotion. The DPC(s), may, if need be, prepare extended panel(s) following the principles prescribed in the Department of Personnel and Training, O.M. No.22011/8/87-Estt(D), dated 9-4-1996. (Copy enclosed).
4. Ministries/Departments are requested to bring these instructions to the notice of all concerned including their Attached and Subordinate Offices. Another notification was issued by the DOP&T on 13.02.2009, which is also reproduced below in extenso:
No.4/12/2001-CS.I (D) Government of India Ministry of Personnel, P.G. and Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training) Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market New Delhi Dated the 13th February, 2009 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: Fixation of pay of the officers of Grade I (US) of CSS, on inclusion in the Selection Grade (Deputy Secretary) of CSS Select List o 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006.
Select Lists of Selection Grade (Deputy Secretary) of CSS for the years 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 have been finalized and issued vide this Departments OM No.4/1/2007-CS.I(D) dated 26.12.2008, OM No. 4/4/2008-CS.I(D) dated 7.1.2009 and OM No. 4/9/2008-CS.I(D) dated 30.1.2009 respectively. Names of the officers who have been considered fit for inclusion in CSS Selection Grade (Deputy Secretary) Select Lists for the above years, but have since retired on attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise, have also been included in the Select Lists as per the existing instructions.
2. The question of fixation of pay of the officers who are included in the Select List of Selection Grade (Deputy Secretary) of CSS for the years 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 has been considered in this Department. Since the approved service in respect of such officers in terms of Rule 2 (c) (iii) of the CSS Rules 1962, counts from the 1st July of the respective Select List Year, the pay of such officers may be fixed in terms of the provisions contained in FR 22(1)(a)(i) i.e. w.e.f. 1st July of the respective Select List year in which they have been so included, on notional basis. The actual financial benefits, however, would be available only from the date the officers are so appointed and assumed the charge of Deputy Secretary.
3. All Administrative Ministries/Departments are requested to notify the appointments of the officers on a regular basis w.e.f. 1st July of the respective year in which the officers have been included, if not already done and take action regarding fixation of pay in respect of officers working under them, in accordance with para 2 above. These instructions shall not apply in the case of officers who were granted pay benefits under this Departments OM No.4/21/2004-CS.I dated 11.3.2005.
4. The appointment of those who retired on superannuation or otherwise as Under Secretary without being appointed to the CSS Selection Grade (Deputy Secretary) shall not be notified, in terms of the provisions contained in this Departments OM No.22011/4/98-Estt.(D) dated 12.10.1998. The pay fixation benefit would be admissible only to those retired officers who had assumed the charge of Deputy Secretary prior to their superannuation etc and are figuring in the above mentioned Selection Grade Select Lists. Such benefits, if any, are to be granted by the Ministries/ Departments from where the officers retired and are also to be informed accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.C. Luther) Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of India.
4. The learned counsel for the Applicant would contend that the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right [Union of India and others Vs. Sangram Keshari Nayak, (2007) 6 SCC 704]. Sh. L.R. Khatana, learned counsel for the Applicants in seven OAs before us contends that such consideration, if it results in an employee being found fit, yet not leading to any meaningful result manifesting in his promotion, would be utterly meaningless. He derives strength from the following observations of this Tribunal in OA number 1519/2008, Sh. R.S. Gupta Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and others, decided on 24.02.2009, which was an identical case:
16. It is noteworthy that the procedure prescribed vide DoP&T O.M. dated 12.10.1998, while making it clear that retired officers would have no right for actual promotion, does not prohibit grant of notional promotion to them. While promotion may not be claimed as a matter of right from the date of attaining eligibility for promotion, we are of the considered view that once an employee has been illegally and arbitrarily denied consideration for promotion while in service, he cannot continue to be denied the benefit of the same only because he has since retired on superannuation. We, therefore, direct the respondents to convene a review D.P.C. as on 18.08.2005 to consider the case of the applicant for promotion as Senior Accounts Officer keeping in view the Rules, Instructions and in accordance with law. A decision be taken on the recommendations of the D.P.C. and in case the applicant is approved for promotion, the benefits thereof be extended to him notionally, releasing to him the additional pension and retirement dues to which he would become entitled upon re-fixation of pay on the date of superannuation. The above exercise be completed within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The O.A. is disposed of as above. No costs.
17. Before parting, we are constrained to observe that as per DoP&T O.M. dated 12.10.1998 reproduced in Swamys Establishment and Administration, copy at Annexure A-24, a retired employee who would have been considered for promotion if D.P.C. had been held in time, is required to be included in the zone of consideration when a D.P.C. is held after his retirement, but he would have no right for actual promotion. We feel that such a self serving provision, which permits inclusion of the name in the zone of consideration but leads to no consideration and gives no benefit to the retired officer is liable to be regarded as unreasonable and arbitrary. By keeping out the juniors as well, in fact, it reduces the zone of consideration to the benefit of others, the validity of which appears to be doubtful. A retired employee does not hold any post beyond the date of retirement. Extending notional benefit is not likely to have any adverse consequences for others in terms of service, monetary or pensionary benefits that may be due to them. The date of appointment of the next immediate junior would also have no relevance when the D.P.C. is held after retirement. We would, therefore, advise the respondents to consider this matter and take up with the DoP&T for suitable reconsideration and revision of O.M. dated 12.10.1998 keeping in view also the observations made by us. Reliance has also been placed on the judgement of Honourable Punjab and Haryana High Court (DB) in Chaman Lal Lakhanpal Vs. Union Public Service Commission and Ors., decided on 23.11.1998 and reported in 1998 (3) SLR 436. In this case the petitioner, an officer of Haryana Civil Service was eligible for promotion to IAS in the year 1994-95. The Committee to consider the promotion of officers of State Civil Service to IAS did not meet from the year 1994-95 onwards. The petitioner retired on superannuation and he was not considered for promotion later on. Giving relief to the petitioner, the learned DB held thus:
6. It is the admitted position that the petitioner was eligible to be considered for promotion in the year 1994-95. It is also not disputed that his claim has not been considered. Thus, the petitioner, even if he was approaching the date of retirement when the matter was pending before the Tribunal, had a right to be considered with effect from the due date and on being found suitable, he could be fictionally granted the relief which had been denied to him for no fault of his. The relief could not be denied to him merely because a statutory authority viz. the committee as constituted under the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 had not met. The respondents cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own wrong. By sleeping over the matter, they cannot defeat the rights of a citizen available to him under the Constitution as well as the statutory provisions of the regulations.
.. .. ..
10. It was then urged that the petitioner has since retired from service. Even this cannot be a ground for refusing to consider his claim. The right to be considered had accrued in the year 1994-95. The respondents had failed to consider his claim. They had not discharged they duty as enjoined upon them by law. The wrong done to the petitioner can only be remedied by one method viz. directing the respondents to do the needful on the hypothesis that he was in service at the relevant time. If the petitioner is found suitable for inclusion in the select list and if his turn for appointment comes against an available post in the promotion quota, he will be deemed to have been promoted with effect from the due date. Consequential reliefs shall ensue in accordance with the rules.
5. Ms. Raman Oberoi, learned counsel for the Applicant in OA number 1409/2009, P.G. George Vs. Union of India, has also adopted the arguments of Sh. L.R. Khatana, learned counsel for the Applicants in Sewa Ram (supra). Additionally, she has raised the plea of discrimination on the ground that some retired employees, namely, Sh. P.S. Pillai, Sh. R.S. Mathur and Sh. K.R. Sachdeva have been given the benefit of notional promotion retrospectively, after their retirement. Order dated 26.12.2007 in respect of Sh. K.R. Sachdeva has been placed at Annex A-9 (colly).
6. The learned counsel for the Respondents has, however, with great vehemence opposed the cause of the Applicants. It is contended that promotion is always prospective and cannot be granted retrospectively. It would, he contends, be ironical in the extreme that the serving employees would be promoted prospectively, whereas the retired employees would be promoted retrospectively. The learned counsel has relied heavily on the judgement of Honourable Delhi High Court in Union of India Vs. Rajendra Roy in W.P.(C) No.20812/2005 decided on 12.01.2007.
7. We have perused the aforesaid judgement with great care. The Union of India had challenged the order dated 8.07.2005 of this Tribunal in OA number 192/2005. The Tribunal had directed the appellant Union of India to consider Rajendra Roy the respondent in the writ petition for promotion to the Junior Administrative Grade, from the date vacancy occurred in JAG. It was further directed that if the vacancy was prior to 31.01.2005, when the respondent retired on superannuation, the promotion should be given on notional basis, if the name of the respondent figured in the select list recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). The High Court then framed the issue thus:
2. The short question which arises for consideration in this petition is whether the respondent, who had superannuated before the consideration of his case for promotion by the DPC, could be granted promotion on a notional basis, by requiring his case to be considered by the DPC, as and when it is held, and in the event of his being empanelled by the DPC, from the date the vacancy against which he could be promoted becomes available. The Tribunal has answered this question in favour of the respondent and that is how the Union of India is before us in this writ petition to challenge the said direction issued by the respondent. Rajendra Roys claim was that there were sufficient vacancies in JAG since the year 2002 but the DPC did not meet to consider the eligible persons for promotion. He also claimed that he was senior to one Monideepa Mukherjee, who had been promoted to JAG on 10.07.2002. However, the petitioner successfully demonstrated before the High Court that Monideepa Mukherjee was senior to the Applicant. The petitioner also explained that the meetings of DPC could not be convened for vacancies for the years 2002-03 to 2004-05 because ACRs of certain officers in the zone of consideration were not available. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that promotion cannot be granted from the date of occurrence of the vacancy. It can only be granted from the date the recommendations of the DPC have been approved by the competent authority. Yet another contention in Rajendra Roy (supra), which has been raised by the learned counsel for the Respondents herein also was that it would be anomalous that a retired person would be promoted from the date of occurrence of the vacancy whereas the serving employees would be given promotion from the date of his actual promotion following the approval of the panel. This is extremely crucial point for distinguishing this judgement and we shall revert back to it after considering the judgement further. The Honourable Delhi High Court then considered the judgements of Honourable Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs. K.K. Vadera and others, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 625 and Baij Nath Sharma Vs. Honble Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur and Anr., 1988 SCC (L&S) 1754. In K.K. Vadera (supra), the order of this Tribunal was under challenge before the Honourable Supreme Court. The Tribunal had directed that K.K. Vadera and others should be given promotion from the date of creation of the promotional post. The Honourable Supreme Court held thus:
We do not know of any law or any rule under which a promotion is to be effective from the date of creation of the promotional post. After a post falls vacant for any reason whatsoever, a promotion to that post should be from the date the promotion is granted and not from the date on which such post falls vacant. In the same way when additional posts are created, promotions to those posts can be granted only after the Assessment Board has met and made its recommendations for promotions being granted. If on the contrary, promotions are directed to become effective from the date of the creation of additional posts, then it would have the effect of giving promotions even before the Assessment Board has met and assessed the suitability of the candidates for promotion. In the circumstances, it is difficult to sustain the judgment of the Tribunal. In Baij Nath Sharma (supra), the appellant before the Supreme Court sought promotion on notional basis to Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service on the ground that there were vacancies in the said service before he retired. It was noted that no Judicial Officer junior to the appellant had been promoted before his retirement. The appellant sought notional promotion from the date of occurrence of vacancy. The High Court has summed up the decision of the Supreme Court thus:
16. The Honble Supreme Court held that the appellant would certainly have a grievance if any of his juniors had been given promotion from a date prior to his superannuation which was not the case before the Court. The Court also noticed that there was no rule under which promotion could be granted from the date of occurrence of the vacancy. The Court relied upon its earlier decision in K.K. Vadera (supra) and the dismissed the appeal of Baijnath Sharma. This decision in our view, seals the fate of the respondent. No doubt, the Honble Supreme Court regretted the inaction on the part of the High Court to make timely promotions since delays and inaction, resulted in deprivation of promotion to the deserving candidates without any fault of theirs. The Supreme Court also expressed the desire that such occurrences should not recur. But that by itself cannot give a right to the respondent to go against the jurisprudence evolved in the main part of the judgment. (emphasis supplied) The High Court has also considered the OMs of 12.10.1998 and held thus:
22. We feel that the Tribunal erred on this count as well. The thrust of the OM, which was issued soon after the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Baijnath Sharma (supra) is to clarify that the superannuated employees should not be considered for promotion where the DPC is being held after their superannuation. The later part of the OM, which is contradictory to the dictum of the Honble Supreme Court in Baijnath Sharma (supra) obviously cannot be given effect to. Pertinently even the said OM does not in clear terms say that the retired/superannuated employees, if considered and recommended by the DPC would be granted notional promotion from a back date. However, the Tribunal has read this aspect into the OM which, in any event, it could not have done. Eventually, it was held that:
25. Coming to the charge of discrimination against him by the petitioner, on the basis of that, the petitioner had promoted a large number of Sr. Grade officers of IIS Group `A to JAG notionally w.e.f. 10.7.2002 and on actual basis w.e.f. the date of the taking over a charge, many of whom in the meantime had retired. We find even this claim to be misplaced. He claims that four of his colleagues, who retired like him in the Sr. Grade of IIS Group `A have been given notional promotion to Junior Administrative Grade from retrospective date i.e. 7.2.2002. However, what is being missed by the respondent is that all the persons promoted retrospectively notionally w.e.f. 10.7.2002 to the Junior Administrative Grade of the service were senior to the respondent as per the revised seniority list as on 31.3.2000. Had a junior of the respondent been promoted to the Junior Administrative Grade, certainly the respondent would have had a valid and enforceable claim to seek notional promotion from retrospective date i.e. from the date on which the junior was promoted. But this is not his case. (emphasis added)
8. It is thus very clear that :
there is no rule that promotion should be given from the date of creation of the promotional post;
if promotions are effected prospectively from the date of issue of the order of promotion, retired employees would not be eligible for promotion retrospectively; and if promotion is granted retrospectively and a person junior to the retired employee has been promoted from the date when the retired person was in service and if the retired person has been found fit by the DPC, such retired person would be entitled to promotion retrospectively on notional basis from the date his immediate junior has been promoted. This is clear from the judgement in Baijnath Sharma, as it has been paraphrased in Rajendra Roy (supra) in paragraph 16, quoted above. Moreover, it has further been clarified by the Honourable High Court in Rajendra Roy (supra) itself in paragraph 25 of the judgement, which has been quoted above.
9. Much was made of the observations of the Delhi High Court in paragraph 22, quoted above, by the learned counsel for the Respondent. He would contend, on the strength of that paragraph, that it would be quite wrong to interpret the OM of 12.10.1998 of DOP&T to mean that the retired person can be given notional promotion from a back date. The OM of 12.10.1998, of course, states that whilst retired employee may be considered for promotion in the Select List/ Panel of the years, in which they were in service, but they would not be eligible for actual promotion. It also states that the purpose of including the retired employees in the list of eligible persons for inclusion in the Select List/ Panel is to ensure that those persons, who were not eligible for inclusion in the zone of consideration at that time, should not get in because of not including the names of persons, who were in service at that time in the list of eligible employees, only because they have retired. The important point is that the aforesaid OM does not bar notional promotion, while it bars actual promotion. In fact actual promotion from retrospective date would not be given even to serving employees. However, it cannot be denied that if a person junior to a retired employee is promoted with retrospective effect, from a date when the retired employee was also in service, such benefit cannot be denied to the retired employee. It would be logically inconsistent to give the benefit of retrospective promotion to a serving employee and deny the same to a retired employee. It would be unfair and it would mean that the retired employee has been made to pay for the delay in the preparation of the Select List/ Panel, caused solely due to the mistake of the Government. In Union of India etc. Vs. K.V. Jankiraman etc., JT 1991 (3) SC 527, though in a different context, the Honourable Supreme Court held that the employee would be eligible for all actual benefits of promotion retrospectively because he was prevented by the Government from working in the higher post.
10. In Rajendra Roy (supra), the Respondent before the Honourable Delhi High Court had retired from service and none of his juniors had been promoted before his retirement. In the instant case, however, it is clear from the reading of the impugned order dated 13.02.2009 itself that the approved service in respect of the officers who have been included in the Select List of Selection Grade (Deputy Secretary of CSS) for the years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 would be counted from the first July of the respective Select List year in terms of Rule 2 (c) (iii) of the CSS Rules, 1962. This order has been quoted in a preceding paragraph. It is because of this that notional promotion to all those who have been included in the Select List has been given from the first July of the Select List year, i.e., 1.07.2003, 1.07.2004, 1.07.2005 and 1.07.2006. This is the distinguishing feature between Rajendra Roy (supra) and the OAs under consideration.
11. In so far as the argument regarding discrimination, as urged by the learned counsel for the Applicant in OA 1409/2009 in view of the fact that some retired employees had been given the benefit of retrospective promotion is concerned, this has been explained by the Respondents by stating in the counter affidavit that the persons junior to those retired employees had been working as Deputy Secretaries on in situ promotion. It is stated that because of this reason the retired employees Sh. P.S. Pillai, Sh. R.S. Mathur and Sh. K.R. Sachdeva had to be given the benefit of retrospective promotion. We feel that there is no need for us to go any further in this matter as the OAs succeed on the basis of the discussion above.
12. In the result, the OAs are allowed. The Respondents are directed to grant notional promotion to the Applicants from the date their immediate juniors were promoted in various Select Lists of the years 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006. The promotion would be notional but it would count towards increments and consequently in recalculation of post-retirement dues. The Respondents would recalculate the dues and make these over to the Applicants as expeditiously as possible but not later than 15.06.2010. There will be no order as to costs.
( L.K. Joshi ) ( V.K. Bali )
Vice Chairman (A) Chairman
/dkm/