Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Babu Lal Mudgal vs Union Of India And Ors ... on 9 October, 2024
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari, Bhuwan Goyal
[2024:RJ-JP:42725-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2636/2009
Babu Lal Mudgal son of Shri Ratan Lal Sharma, aged about 63
years and retired from the post of DDM (PLI-I), Office of Chief
Post Master General, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur, resident of Plot
No.518, Krishna Nagar, Bharatpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India through Secretary to the Government,
Department of Posts, Ministry of Communication Dak Bhawan,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
2. Chief Post Master General, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur.
3. Shri Bodan Lal Meena, Assistant Director, Postal Services,
Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur and at present Senior Superintendent
of Post Offices, Alwar.
4. Shri C.M. Gehlot, Senior Superintendent, RMS, Jaipur Division,
Jaipur at present residing at village and Post Laxmangarh, near
Government Primary School, No.1, Sikar.
5. Central Administrative Tribunal, through Registrar, Jaipur
Bench, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Jain
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL
Order
09/10/2024
1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition aggrieved by order dated 03.09.2008 passed in Original Application No.105/2004 whereby the Original Application preferred by the petitioner was dismissed and order dated 11.11.2008 whereby review application preferred by the petitioner against order dated 03.09.2008 was dismissed.
2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed as Clerk in the respondent (Downloaded on 16/10/2024 at 09:48:35 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:42725-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-2636/2009] Department on 02.04.1966 and after passing the departmental examination in the year 1972, he was promoted as Inspector of Post Office (I.P.O.) with effect from 16.04.1973.
3. The respondents - Shri Bodan Lal Meena and Shri C.M. Gehlot were promoted as Inspector of Post Office (I.P.O.) in the batch of 1976 & 1974 respectively i.e. after the present petitioner.
4. It is contended that respondents - Shri Bodan Lal Meena and Shri C.M. Gehlot were promoted as Asstt. Supdt. of Post Offices (A.S.P.O.) prior to the petitioner against reserved vacancy of SC and ST candidates. Petitioner was thereafter promoted to the post of Asstt. Supdt. of Post Offices (A.S.P.O.) and as per the "catch up" Rule, he again regained his seniority and a seniority list was issued by the department on 11.06.1987 and February, 1995 wherein the petitioner has been shown as senior to the respondents.
5. It is contended that ignoring the "catch up" Rule and the fact that the petitioner was senior to the respondents, petitioner was not considered for promotion to the post of H.S.G.-I and respondents, who were junior to the petitioner, have been promoted to the post of H.S.G.-I and the petitioner's representation against promotion was rejected vide order dated 04.04.1997.
6. It is contended that petitioner filed Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the promotion order as well as the rejection order.
7. It is contended that prior to filing of the present original application, petitioner filed another original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal which was decided by the Central (Downloaded on 16/10/2024 at 09:48:35 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:42725-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-2636/2009] Administrative Tribunal with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner considering the "catch up" Rule. The said representation was also rejected by the respondents vide order dated 05.03.2003.
8. It is contended that the learned Central Administrative Tribunal has ignored the "catch up" Rule and has wrongly dismissed the Original Application holding that the respondents were promoted earlier to the petitioner as Asstt. Supdt. of Post Offices (A.S.P.O.) and therefore they rank senior to the petitioner.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India has opposed the petition.
10. It is contended that the respondents were promoted as Asstt. Supdt. of Post Offices (A.S.P.O.) prior to the petitioner and therefore they were rightly considered for promotion as H.S.G.-I, being senior to the petitioner.
11. We have considered the contentions. Prior to the insertion of Article 16(4)(A) of the Constitution, which came into effect from 17.06.1995, the "catch up" Rule was applicable and in the earlier original application preferred by the petitioner, the respondents were directed by the Central Administrative Tribunal to consider the representation considering the "catch up" Rule.
12. It is evident that petitioner was senior to the respondents and in the seniority list issued in this regard on 11.06.1987 and February, 1995, petitioner has been shown as senior to the respondents.
13. Admittedly, petitioner was senior but as the vacancy was available for SC and ST candidate, persons junior to him were promoted as Asstt. Supdt. of Post Offices (A.S.P.O.) and later on (Downloaded on 16/10/2024 at 09:48:35 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:42725-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-2636/2009] petitioner was also promoted as Asstt. Supdt. of Post Offices (A.S.P.O.) and as per the "catch up" Rule, he regained his seniority and therefore in the seniority list issued by the respondent, he was ranked as senior to the respondents.
14. We are of the considered view that the learned Tribunal has erred in ignoring the "catch up" Rule and dismissing the Original Application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the respondents were promoted earlier to the petitioner on the post of Asstt. Supdt. of Post Offices (A.S.P.O.).
15. It is also pertinent to note that the promotion to the post of H.S.G.-I was made in the year 1991 which is prior to the insertion of Article 16(4)(A) of the Constitution. Thus, we are of the considered view that the learned Tribunal has erred in dismissing the Original Application filed by the petitioner. Consequently, the impugned orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 03.09.2008 and the review order dated 11.11.2008 are quashed.
16. Respondents are directed to treat the petitioner promoted on the post of H.S.G.-I w.e.f. 30.04.1991 with all consequential benefits. Let the order be complied with within a period of two months.
17. This Civil Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed.
(BHUWAN GOYAL),J (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J
Sudeepak/4
(Downloaded on 16/10/2024 at 09:48:35 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)