Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Amit Yadav vs Revenue on 18 May, 2023
1
Item No. 52 (C-3) O.A. No. 995/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 995/2022 with M.A No. 1054/2022
This the 18th day of May, 2023
Hon'ble Mr. Ashish Kalia, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
Amit Yadav, Inspector, Group 'B',
Aged about 42 years,
S/o. Sh. Om Prakash Yadav,
R/o. H. No. 143, Near Post Office,
Nangloi, Delhi-110 041. ...Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. M. K. Bhardwaj)
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance,
North Block, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Chairman,
CBEC,
Ministry of Finance,
North Block, New Delhi - 110 001.
3. The Chief Commissioner of Central Excise,
Delhi Zone,
Ministry of Finance,
CR Building, IP Estate,
New Delhi - 110 002. ....Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. Rajeev Kumar)
2
Item No. 52 (C-3) O.A. No. 995/2022
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Ashish Kalia, Member (J) The applicant has filed this OA seeking the following main reliefs :-
"8(i) To Quash and set aside the impugned Order No. II-3 (02)/Sec/Confdl/Amit Yadav/Delhi- N/2021/248 dated 31.01.2022 and direct the respondents to consider the applicant for promotion to the post of Superintendent Central Excise by holding review DPC and grant him promotion from due date of promotion of his immediate junior with all consequential benefits of pay fixation and seniority.
ii) To declare the action of respondents in deferring the case of applicant for promotion in the year 2017 & 2018 as illegal and direct the respondents to consider the case of applicant for promotion to the post of Superintendent of Central Excise by holding review DPC and assess his suitability on the basis of available APARs and promote him to the post of Superintendent of Central Excise w.e.f. 01.04.2016/ 01.04.2017 etc., with all consequential benefits.
iii) To declare the action of DPC dated 15.03.2018 and 19.12.2018 as bad in law and direct the respondents to hold review DPC and to assess the suitability of applicant for promotion as Superintendent of Central Excise (GST) on the basis of available APARs and grant him promotion on the basis of suitability as adjudged on the basis of available APRs by the DPC with all consequential benefits."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant who joined as Inspector, Central Excise and Customs in Delhi 3 Item No. 52 (C-3) O.A. No. 995/2022 Zone on 11.11.2009 is aggrieved by the alleged discriminatory action of the respondents in deferring his case for promotion due to non availability of APARs for the period from 2014-15 to 2016-17 and delay in holding of the review DPC. He is further aggrieved by promotion of his batchmates/juniors of 2010 and 2011 who have been promoted ignoring his claim.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn our attention to the DoP&T guidelines on DPCs dated 20.05.1972, 10.04.1989 and 16.06.2020 regarding promotions by Departmental Promotion Committee referred in the matter of UOI & Ors. vs. G. R. Meghwal SCSLJ 2023 (1) 33 where the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :-
"OM dated 14.05.2009 the APAR should be completed as per schedule and same is required to be communicated within 15 days. In case the time scheduled is not followed grading in the concerned APAR cannot be treated as below Bench mark."
4. Learned counsel put reliance on Para 'c' of the said guidelines and prayed that this OA be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider his case for 4 Item No. 52 (C-3) O.A. No. 995/2022 promotion in terms of the aforesaid guidelines which is reproduced below :-
"Para 6.2.1 (c) :
(c) Where one or more CRs have not been written for any reason during the relevant period, the DPC should consider the CRs of the years preceding the period in question and if in an case even these are not available, the DPC should take the CRs of the lower grade into account to complete the number of CRs required to be considered as per (b) above. If this is also not possible, all the available CRs should be taken into account."
5. Notices were issued to the respondents who put appearance and filed reply opposing the OA.
6. Heard learned counsel for both sides, perused the pleadings and appreciated the legal position also.
7. The short question raised in the present OA is that in case of non-availability of APAR/ACR for the relevant period, in the present case APAR is missing from 2014- 2016, what would be the repercussion ?
8. To be very precise, the DoP&T guidelines are very clear on the subject and relevant portion has been referred herein above. Thus, we are of the considered 5 Item No. 52 (C-3) O.A. No. 995/2022 opinion that at this stage, it would be appropriate to dispose of this OA by directing that the impugned order dated 31.01.2022 is not sustainable in the eyes of law is hereby set aside and issue directions to the respondents to consider the applicant's case in terms of the DoP&T guidelines dated 20.05.1972, 10.04.1989 and 16.06.2020 which are squarely applicable in the case in hand. Thus, the respondents are directed to do the needful in light of the aforesaid Guidelines and assess the suitability of the applicant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in case applicant is found suitable in all respects he shall be considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent Excise.
9. The OA stands disposed of accordingly. Pending M.A (s) if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Anand S. Khati) (Ashish Kalia) Member (A) Member (J) /Mbt/