Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Kuldip Kumar Sharma vs Post Graduate Institute Of Medical ... on 9 October, 2025
1- O.A. No. 753/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Original Application No. 753/2022
Pronounced on: 09.10.2025
Reserved on: 09.09.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)
Kuldip Kumar Sharma son of Sh. Gian Chand Sharma, age 61 years
(Retired Legal Assistant, Legal Cell, PGIMER, Chandigarh) r/o resident of
Flat No. J-41, PGI Enclave, G.H. 94, Sector-20, Panchkula-Haryana -
134120.
.... Applicant
By Advocate: Mr. K.B. Sharma
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary Government of India, Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110001,
2. The PGIMER, Chandigarh through Union Health Minister-cum-
President PGIMER/Appellate Authority Group B,C & D Employees,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-11000.
3. The Director-cum-appointing Authority/ Disciplinary Authority Group
B,C and D Employees, PGIMER, Chandigarh-160012.
... .Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC
ORDER
Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-
1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:-
(i) That the impugned order dated 15.07.2022 (A-11) be quashed and set aside and Annexure A-12 dated 03.02.2021 to 2- O.A. No. 753/2022 the extent denying benefit of promotion to the applicant be also quashed and set aside.
(ii) That the respondents be directed to grant benefit of backlog promotion scheme (1 cadre review scheme) to the applicant, from due date, along with all consequential benefits as has been extended to the similarly placed employees, including the arrears of pay and allowances and revised pensionary benefits like revised Leave Encashment, revised Gratuity, revised pension, revised CVP and revised CGIES, with interest @ GPF rate, from due date till the actual payment is made.
(iii) That the respondents be directed to extend the benefit of the decision rendered by this Tribunal i.e. Annexure A-4 & Annexure A-8.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the applicant had joined the PGIMER, Chandigarh, as a Clerk w.e.f. 15.07.1982. While working with the respondents, the applicant has done his graduation in the year, 1986 and LLB 3 years (professional) in the year 1996 from the Evening College of Panjab University, Chandigarh after getting due permission from the respondent No.3. The applicant was appointed as Ward-Aide in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 vide office order dated 16.03.1988 alongwith 4 other Clerks working in the Institute. The applicant was granted first promotion as Legal Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 5000- 8000 vide office order dated 27.02.2004. The applicant was granted 2nd ACP after completion of 24 years service w.e.f. 15.7.2006 and 3rd ACP in July, 2012 respectively after completion of 30 years of service.
3. The Government of India Ministry of Health and Family Welfare New Delhi vide letter No. V.17020/59/85-ME(PG) dated 12/20 March, 3- O.A. No. 753/2022 1987 has issued instructions to the respondent No.3 relating to the schemes of backlog promotion for non teaching staff (first cadre review in respect of the non academic staff of the respondent Institute to be operative from 1 Jan, 1985 to group B,C and D non academic staff of the Institute. The respondent Institute has granted backlog promotions to the employees of the Institute, who has completed 8 years of service on one particular post upto 31.12.1984. Since the cut off date fixed by the PGI denying benefit of promotional scheme to the employees recruited between 1977 to 31.12.1984 was discriminatory, two cases were filed in the Hon'ble High Court being CWP No. 5874 of 1992 Shyam Lal Jassal and others Versus PGI, Chandigarh and another and CWP No. 4128 of 1994, which were transferred to this Tribunal and numbered as TA No.55-CH-2013 and TA No. 12-CH-2010. The TA No. 12-CH-2010 was allowed by this Tribunal vide order dated 10.07.2013 holding that the cut of date is illegal and arbitrary. The Dhar Committee recommendations were applicable to the non faculty employees as well. The Scheme was to provide promotional avenues to Group-B, C, and D employees and not being a one time measure and respondents were directed to consider the feasibility of extending the like benefit to Group B, C and D employees. This Tribunal further hold that the relevant scheme is not a onetime affairs and it has to be implemented on continuous basis. The aforesaid order was affirmed by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 5932 of 2014 on 31.03.2014. The SLP No. 15202 of 2014 filed by the respondents was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, with liberty to the petitioner to go back to the High Court and file review petition. The respondents filed a Review Petition No. 495 of 2014 before the Hon'ble 4- O.A. No. 753/2022 Punjab and Haryana High Court and the same was also dismissed on 26.09.2014.
4. The respondent Institute again preferred SLP No. 30058-30059 of 2014, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to interfere on the issue of maintainability of the second SLP vide order dated 27.09.2016. The respondents filed CWP No. 13176 of 2018 titled as Union of India Vs. PGI Medical Technologies Association and Ors before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and the same was also dismissed. The respondents approached to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by way of filing SLP (Civil) Dairy. No. 36796 of 2018 titled as Union of India Vs. PGI Medical Technologies Association and ors and the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. After the dismissal of SLP filed by the Union of India, the respondent Institute vide order No. PGI-MA-2019/F-010/386 dated 01.04.2019 has accorded the sanction for grant of backlog promotion under 1st cadre Review Scheme in favour of petitioners i.e. the class of employees represented by the PGI Medical Technologies Association, who are recruited in PGIMER, Chandigarh between the period from 01.01.1977 to 31.12.1984. Similarly benefits of backlog promotion was also granted to the petitioners in TA No.55 of 2013 (in CWP 5874 of 1992) decided on 13.12.2013 vide order dated 15.09.2021 passed by the respondent No.3 Institute.
5. The applicant approached the respondent No.3 vide his application dated 02.05.2022 for grant of backlog promotion under 1st Cadre Review Scheme inter alia stating therein that similar benefits have been granted to the employees, who were appointed alongwith him and the Accounts Branch of the respondent No.3 has released their 5- O.A. No. 753/2022 due amount. The respondent No.3 vide letter no. Ell(1)-2022/F-01 dated 15.7.2022 rejected the claim of the applicant for grant of benefit of 1st Cadre Review Scheme by stating that the sanction was accorded for grant of backlog promotion under 1st Cadre Review Scheme in favour of the applicants in order dated 13.12.2013 in T.A. No. 55 of 2013 (in CWP No.5874 of 1992) who were recruited in the Institute between the period from 01.01.1977 to 31.12.1984 only vide office order dated 03.02.2021, Thus your request for grant of benefit of backlog promotion could not be acceded to.
6. The applicant pleaded that the stand taken by the respondents in the impugned order dated 15.07.2022 (A-11) is not sustainable in view judgment passed in the case Satbir Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2002 (2) SCT page 354, by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. C. Lalitha (2006) 2 SCC 747. It is well settled proposition of law that an order of a court of law should be implemented for similarly situated employees whether party or not instead of forcing each and every individual to approach the court of law, as held in Union of India & Another etc. etc. Vs. Lalita S. Rao & others, AIR 2001, SC 1792; E.S.P. Rajaram & Others Vs. Union of India & Others, AIR 2001 SC 581; Satyapal Singh & Others Vs. The State of Haryana & Another, 1999 (2) RSJ, 377. Satbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2002 (2) SCT, 354; Dr. (Mrs.) Santosh Kumari Vs. Union of India & others, JT 1994 (7) SC
565.
7. The respondents filed written statement contesting the claim of the applicant and submitted that Sh. Kuldip Kumar Sharma, Ex- Legal 6- O.A. No. 753/2022 Assistant submitted his request vide letter dated 02.05.2022 for grant of backlog promotion under 1st cadre Review Scheme, which was considered by the authority in terms of office order dated 03.02.2021 vide which sanction was accorded for grant of backlog promotion under 1st cadre review in favour of applicants/petitioners only, of order dated 13.12.2013 in T.A. No.55 of 2013 (in CWP No. 5874 of 1992) and the name of Kuldip Kumar Sharma did not fall under the office order dated 03.02.2021 and accordingly, his request was not acceded to and he was informed accordingly vide this office letter dated 15.07.2022. The applicant is not entitled to any relief as he has approached this Tribunal with huge delay and has not even filed any application seeking condonation of delay.
8. The applicant has filed rejoinder reiterating its earlier and has relied upon the order dated 28.04.2023 passed by this Tribunal in O.A No. 1117/2021 titled as Rameshwar Yadav vs. Union of India.
9. We have gone through the pleadings, perused the material available on record and considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for both the sides.
10. The controversy involved in the instant O.A has recently been adjudicated by this Tribunal vide order dated 28.04.2023 in the case of Rameshwar Yadav vs. Union of India, wherein this Tribunal has observed as under:
15. As applicant's pensionary rights are affected every month, it is a recurring cause of action. Hence there is no delay.
16. Once the law has been settled by a Court and has attained finality, it is in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India to implement the said decision in respect of all similarly situated employees and not force each one of them 7- O.A. No. 753/2022 to approach the court for grant of legitimate claim. The decision of respondents in rejecting claim of the applicant is not in consonance with the ratio of Satibir Singh's case (supra).
17. In view of the discussions above, order dated 19.03.2020 (Annexure A-6) is quashed and respondents are directed to implement the backlog Scheme dated 20.03.1987 within a period of eight weeks. The applicants shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits. No orders so as to costs.
The order dated 28.04.2023 has been implemented by the respondents (Annexure A-14).
11. In view of the discussion herein above, the applicant herein is also entitled for the same relief as has been granted to similar situated persons. The O.A is allowed. The impugned orders dated 15.07.2022 (Annexure A-11) and 03.02.2021 (Annexure A-12) are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to implement the backlog Scheme dated 20.03.1987 within a period of eight weeks. The applicants shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits. No orders so as to costs.
(RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI) (SURESH KUMAR BATRA)
Member (A) MEMBER (J)
'ms'