Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Tilak Raj vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 25 September, 2025
1
Item No. 92 (C-4) O.A. No.2167/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A. No.2167/2024
Reserved on: 01.09
01.09.2025
Pronounced on: 25.09.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
Tilak Raj,
S/o Raghu Nath Rai, aged about 52 years,
E-1074,
1074, Saraswati Vihar,
Delhi - 110034.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Krishan Kumar Chugh with Ms. Nidhi T.
Raj)
Versus
1. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
9th Floor, Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Center,
Minto Road, New Delhi - 110001.
2. Director (Central Establishment Department),
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
9th Floor, Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Center,
Minto Road, New Delhi - 110001.
...Respondents
(By Advocate Ms. Anupama Bansal assisted by Ms. Neha
Bairagee)
2
Item No. 92 (C-4) O.A. No.2167/2024
ORDER
Hon'ble on'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) In the present case, the applicant applicant seeks the following relief:-
"(a)
(a) That the applicant be regularized with immediate effect as per seniority no. 934."
2. Highlighting the facts of the case case, learned counsel for the applicant referred to daily order dated 17.07.2025 passed by this Tribunal, which is reproduced below:
"Mr. Krishnan Kumar Choogh appears along with Ms. Nidhi T. Raj for the applicant and submits that since the vakalatnama of the arguing counsel who has fi filed the present OA was already on record, his vakalatnama was returned back and same is now placed on record.
The learned counsels for the applicant contended that the applicant was considered in DPC held on 20.09.2013 and promotion order from the post of Junior Engineer, Civil to Assistant Engineer, Civil on ad ad-hoc basis was issued vide order dated 28.02.2014 and the said order was issued after 5 months from the date of DPC and before issuance of promotion order to the applicant, the respondents promoted juniors to the applicant whereas the applicant was eligible for offer of promotion in September, 2013.
The applicant filed OA No. 684/2014 and meanwhile the respondents issued promotion order dated 28.02.2014 (Annexure A-2) A and the said OA was disposed of vide order dated 05.01.2016.
The respondents have issued promotion order dated 06.10.2023 to the post of Executive Engineer, Civil on ad hoc basis as evident from pages 14 to 15 (Annexure ad-hoc A 1) whereby juniors to the applicant from Sr. 105 to 238 A-1) have been promoted.3
Item No. 92 (C-4) O.A. No.2167/2024 In nutshell, the crux of the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant is regarding grant of regularization from 06.10.2023 when the juniors to the applicants have been regularized.
The learned counsel for the applicant further emphasis emphasised that the respondents have taken false plea in the WS that the applicant was suspended hence DPC proceedings were kept in sealed cover, whereas the suspension of the applicant was already revoked on 23.08.2016 hence the pleadings in para 16 of the WS is contrary to record and the respondents arbitrarily denied consideration for further promotion prior to the juniors and the applicant is entitled for regularization from the date when the juniors were regularized.
The learned counsels for the applicant fur further submitted that the applicant was not under suspension and the respondents have erroneously stated in para 10 of the WS that due to suspension of the applicant, the recommendations of DPC for the Panel Year 20192019-2023 were kept in sealed cover. So also, submits that the DPC was held on 20.09.2013 and due to delay of 5 months on the part of the respondents, the promotion order was issued on 28.02.2014 and meanwhile the juniors were promoted.
The respondents are directed to bring the proceedings of the Screening Screening Committee held on 20.09.2013 in a sealed cover to establish why the juniors to the applicant were promoted and why promotion order in the case of applicant was issued after issuance of promotion order to the juniors and clarify why the DPC proceedin proceedings were kept in a sealed cover due to suspension of the applicant, whereas the suspension of the applicant was revoked in the year 2016.
The learned proxy counsel for the respondents seeks a short adjournment as the main arguing counsel is on her legs before before the Hon'ble High Court.
It is made clear that no further extenstion of time shall be granted to the respondents and this Tribunal may invoke rule 16 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 and decide the matter based on the pleadings available on record on the the next date of hearing.
List on 18.08.2025."4
Item No. 92 (C-4) O.A. No.2167/2024
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the relief sought in the present O.A. is not tenable subsequent to passing of an order dated 06.10.2023.. Learned counsel added that the applicant ought to have suitably prayed for amendment of the O O.A. and sought appropriate relief for opening of the sealed cover and without the amendment, the relief prayed for in the present O.A. cannot be granted.
3.1. Learned counsel for the respondents respondents further submitted that the applicant was appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on 11.06.1997 and his name stood at serial number 934 in the final seniority list circulated in 2007. As per the notified recruit recruitment rules, diploma holders like the applicant are eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) only after eight years of regular service. It is further submitted that the applicant was considered along with his seniors and juniors for ad-hoc hoc promotion by the Departmental Screening Committee held on 20.09.2013, and was accordingly promoted as Assistant Engineer (Civil) on ad ad-
hoc basis vide order dated 28.02.2014. The promotion was 5 Item No. 92 (C-4) O.A. No.2167/2024 purely temporary and subject to regular DPC, without conferring erring any right to seniority or regular appointment.
3.2. Learned counsel further pointed out that the Review DPC and regular DPCs for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) were held from time to time, the latest being the DPC dated 05.09.2023 for the vacancy vacancy years 2009 2009-10 to 2023.
In this DPC, the applicant's case was duly considered along with his batchmates. However, due to pendency of departmental proceeding, suspension order departmental order, and penalties earlier imposed upon him, the DPC kept his case in a "sealed cover" for the vacancy years 2019 to 2023 in accordance with DoPT instructions.
3.3. Adding to submissions, learned counsel submitted that the applicant was earlier placed under suspension on 17.05.2016 for dereliction of duty, though later reinstated on 23.08.2016.
3.08.2016. Further, disciplinary proceedings were pending and penalties, including reduction in pay and censure, had been imposed against him. In such circumstances, as per settled law and DoPT O.M. dated 6 Item No. 92 (C-4) O.A. No.2167/2024 10.04.1989, the DPC rightly adopted the sealed cove cover procedure in his case.
3.4. Learned counsel counsel for the respondents emphasized that ad-hoc hoc service cannot be counted for determining eligibility or seniority, and the applicant's claim for regular promotion on the basis of his ad-hoc ad hoc promotion is misplaced. Since the recommendations of the DPC with regard to the applicant remain in sealed cover, his name could not be included in the promotion orders dated 06.10.2023 or subsequent orders.
3.5. In light of the above, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted ed that the respondents have acted strictly in accordance with rules, regulations and DoPT guidelines, and no arbitrariness or illegality has been committed. Therefore, the he Original Application filed by the applicant is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
4. It is observed that despite the directions of this Tribunal to the respondents to "bring on record the proceedings of the Screening Committee held on 20.09.2013 in a sealed cover to establish why the juniors to the 7 Item No. 92 (C-4) O.A. No.2167/2024 applicant were promoted and why promotion order in the case of applicant was issued after issuance of promotion order to the juniors and clarify why the DPC proceedings were kept in a sealed cover due to suspension of the applicant, whereas the suspension of the applica applicant was d in the year 2016", nothing has been brought on revoked record by the respondents.
5. Be that as it may. The issue to be examined in the present matter is that whether the applicant could have been denied the regularization of his ad hoc promotion vis vis-
à-vis juniors ors by virtue of order dated 06.10.2023 on account of adoption sealed cover procedure due to non-
availability of treatment of suspension period for the vacancy/panel y/panel year 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 & 2023.
6. ANALYSIS :
6.1. The consolidated guidelines pertaining to the adoption of sealed cover procedure which ought to have been followed by the respondents, reads as under:
"2. At the time of consideration of the cases of Government servants for promotion, details of Government servants in the consideration zone for promotion falling under the following 8 Item No. 92 (C-4) O.A. No.2167/2024 categories should be specifically brought to the notice of the Departmental Promotion Committee: -
(i) Government servants under suspension;
(ii) Government servants in respect of whom a charge sheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending; and
(iii) Government servants in respect of whom prosecution for a criminal minal charge is pending.
For the purpose of pendency of prosecution for a criminal charge, the definition of pendency of judicial proceedings in criminal cases given in Rule 9 (6)(b)(i) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 [Now Explanation 1(b)((i) under Rule 8 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021] is adopted. The Rule 9 (6)(b)(i) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 [Now Explanation 1(b)(i) under Rule 8 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021] provides as under:
under:-
"(b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted -
(i) in the case of of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint or report of a Police Officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made"
[Para 2 of OM No. 22011/4/91-Estt.(A) 22011/4/91 Estt.(A) dated 14.09.1992; and Para 8 of OM No. 22034/4/2012-Estt.(D) 22034/4/2012 Estt.(D) dated 02.11.2012 02.11.2012] 2.1 A Government servant, who is recommended for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee but in whose case any of the circumstances mentioned in para 2 above arises after the recommendations of the DPC are received but before he is actually promoted, promoted, the recommendations of DPC will be considered as if his case had been placed in a sealed cover by the DPC. He shall not be promoted until he is completely exonerated of the charges against him. [Para 7 of OM No. 22011/4/91-Estt.(A) 22011/4/91 Estt.(A) dated 14.09.1992] 2.2 It is stated that para 2.1 above will not be applicable if by the time the seal was opened to give effect to the exoneration in the first enquiry, another departmental inquiry was started by the department against the Government servant concerned. Thiss means that where the second or subsequent departmental proceedings were instituted after promotion of the junior to the Government servant concerned on the basis of the recommendation made by the DPC which kept the recommendation in respect of the Govern Government servant in sealed cover, the benefit of the assessment by the first DPC will be admissible to the Government servant on exoneration in the first inquiry, with effect from the date his immediate junior was promoted.
[Para 3 of OM No. 22011/2/2002-Estt.
22011/2/2002 Estt.(A) dated 24.02.2003] 9 Item No. 92 (C-4) O.A. No.2167/2024 2.3 In the case of review DPC, where a junior has been promoted on the recommendations of original DPC, the official would be considered for promotion if he/she is clear from vigilance angle on the date of promotion of the junior, eveeven if the circumstances of para 2 above get attracted on the date of actual promotion. Further, in case where the junior is not promoted, it is to be ensured that the provisions of para 2.1 above are not attracted on the date the official is being actually promoted.
[Para 3 of OM No.22034/4/2012-Estt.(D No.22034/4/2012 Estt.(D-II) dated 23.01.2014]
3. The Departmental Promotion Committee shall assess the suitability of the Government servants coming within the purview of the circumstances mentioned above alongwith other eligible candidates candidates without taking into consideration the disciplinary case/criminal prosecution pending. The assessment of the DPC, including 'Unfit for Promotion', and the grading awarded by it will be kept in a sealed cover. The cover will be superscribed 'Findings 'Findings regarding suitability for promotion to the grade/post of .................in respect of Shri ............................................(name of the Government servant). Not to be opened till the termination of the disciplinary case/criminal prosecution against Shri.................................. The proceedi proceedings of the DPC need only contain the note 'The findings are contained in the attached sealed cover'. The authority competent to fill the vacancy should be separately advised to fill the vacancy in the higher grade only in an officiating capacity when the ffindings of the DPC in respect of the suitability of a Government servant for his promotion are kept in a sealed cover. [Para 2.1 of OM No. 22011/4/91-Estt.(A) 22011/4/91 Estt.(A) dated 14.09.1992] 3.1 The same procedure outlined in para 3 above will be followed by the subsequent subsequent Departmental Promotion Committees convened till the disciplinary case/criminal prosecution against the Government servant concerned is concluded.
[Para 2.2 of OM No. 22011/4/91-Estt.(A) 22011/4/91 Estt.(A) dated 14.09.1992]
4. It is necessary to ensure that the disciplina disciplinary case/criminal prosecution instituted against any Government servant is not unduly prolonged and all efforts to finalize expeditiously the proceedings should be taken so that the need for keeping the case of a Government servant in a sealed cover is limi limited to the barest minimum. It has, therefore, been decided that the appointing authorities concerned should review comprehensively the cases of Government servants, whose suitability for promotion to a higher grade has been kept in a sealed cover on the expiry expiry of 6 months from the date of 10 Item No. 92 (C-4) O.A. No.2167/2024 convening the first Departmental Promotion Committee which had adjudged his suitability and kept its findings in the sealed cover. Such a review should be done subsequently also every six months. The review should, inter a alia, cover the progress made in the disciplinary proceedings/criminal prosecution and the further measures to be taken to expedite their completion. [Para 4 of OM No. 22011/4/91-Estt.(A) 22011/4/91 Estt.(A) dated 14.09.1992] 14.09.1992]"
6.2. It is noticeable that despite recall of suspen suspension vide office order dated 23.08.2016, 23.08.2016, no order as to treatment of suspension period has been passed by the competent authority till date which is evident from the order dated 08.01.2024. The said order reads as under:
"Subject:
Subject: To provide the status of treatment of suspension period reg.
It is informed that with reference to this office letter no. No.F.2(29)/CED/2023/4837 dated 17/11/2023, RDA/Police Case report in respect of 17 AEs/hes has been provided vide letter No. ALO/VCR/Vig./MCD/2023/4518 ALO/VCR/Vig./MCD/2023/4518 dated 15.12.2023 by the Vigilance Department.
In the report, status of treatment of suspension period has not been provided by the Vigilance Department in respect of the incumbent whose name has been given below and it has been directed to to verify from SB/PF of concerned official. Since the instant matter is related to the regular promotion to the post of Asstt. Engineer(Civil) by way of opening of the sealed cover, hence prior to placing the matter before the Competent Authority, some clarification clarification are required in r/o listed official/AE(Civil).
Accordingly, it is requested to provide the copy of the order mentioned below to ascertain the treatment of suspension during the intervening period of the official under reference :
11
Item No. 92 (C-4) O.A. No.2167/2024
Present
Name of Previous Vigilance Report
Sl.No. Place of
official available with the Department
Posting
Suspended vide OO no.
Sh.Tilak Raj
144/PA/DC/CLZ /2016
S/o
1. dt./17.05.2016. reinstated vide DEMS(HQ) Sh.Raghu O.O.No. LO/Vig./P/2016/R LO/Vig./P/2016/R-31 Nath Rai dated 23.08.2016 This may be given TOP PRIORITY This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority Authority."
6.3. It is also noticeable that during the intervening period from 2016 till the date of passing of office order dated 06.10.2023,, no charge rge sheet has been placed on record by the respondents to substantiate substanti their claim that an enquiry was pending in respect of the applicant applicant. The only contention urged by the respondents in their counter affidavit is that "he he was placed under suspension for not performing his duty properly properly vide office order No. 144/PA/DC/CLZ/2016 dated 17.05.2016 and reinstated with immediate effect pending inquiry against him vide office order No. LO/Vig/P/2016/R-31 LO/Vig/P/2016/R 31 dated 23.08.2016 and the outcome of the inquiry was pending in the abovesaid matter".
6.4. It is also noticeable that despite the aforesaid suspension and revocation, the applicant was granted ad 12 Item No. 92 (C-4) O.A. No.2167/2024 hoc promotion omotion vide office order dated 28.02.2014, which reads as under:
"On the recommendations of the Departmental Screening Committee held on 20.09.2013 20.09.2013 and subsequent approval of the Commissioner, North DMC vide its order dated 27.02.2014, Sh. Tilak Raj S/o Sh. Raghunath Rai, Junior Engineer (Civil), is hereby promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) on ad hoc basis in the pay scale of PB-II, Rs. 9300-34800/ 34800/- (Grade Pay Rs. 4600/-) with immediate effect for a period of six months or till regular incumbents/direct recruits become available for the post or till further orders, whichever is earlier & subject to outcome of Court Case(s), if any. The assignment with regard to his allotment of Corporation is being done separately.
This ad-hoc ad hoc promotion will be further subject to the following terms & conditions:
a) The above promotions shall be purely on ad hoc basis as a stop gap arrangement for a period of six months or till the availability of regular incumbents/direct recruits, whichever is earlier, and on such other usual terms and conditions as applicable to adhoc appointments/promotions and outcome of court case(s), If any.
b) The promotion promotion is on ad hoc basis, pending regular appointment in accordance with the Recruitment Regulations and will not confer any privilege or right on the officer for regular appointment to the said post.
c) The period of adhoc service will not be counted towards eligibility period for regular appointment or towards determination of seniority.
d) The ad hoc appointment can be terminated at any time without assigning any reason and giving any prior notice.
(e) The above said ad-hoc hoc promotion shall be subject to the instructions/guidelines instructions/guidelines issued by the Govt. of India/ Corporation from time to time in this regard.
regard."
6.5. We may take note of the fact that on 06.10.2023 06.10.2023, a regular promotion list of the AEs was released in which the 13 Item No. 92 (C-4) O.A. No.2167/2024 name of the applicant having seniority No. 9 934 is striked out which could otherwise have been at S. No. 105.
However,, in the list seniority No. No. 933 is mentioned against S. No.. 104 and Seniority No. 935 is mentioned against S. No.. 105 which clearly shows that the name of the officers, who are junior to the applicant have been mentioned in the list and the name of the applicant is striked out of the list.
It is the contention of the respondents that the case of the applicant has been ignored on the basis of a assessment sheet dated 12.07.2023, which was placed on record before the concerned DPC and, and therefore, the applicant was not considered fro regularization. We observe that only in three situations as contemplated under the rules, the sealed cover procedure ought to be adopted adopted namely:
(i) when the Govt. servant is under suspension,
(ii) A charge sheet is pending against govt. servant servant, and
(iii) Prosecution rosecution in criminal charges is pending against the Govt. servant.
servant 6.6. The rules governing promotion and the sealed cover procedure do not contemplate that, merely due to the 14 Item No. 92 (C-4) O.A. No.2167/2024 absence of an office order regarding the treatment of the suspension period, the sealed cover procedure must be invoked. There is nothing on record to establish that such a reason can form a valid basis for not considering the applicant's case for promotion. The burden lies upon the respondents to demonstrate that there was either a subsisting suspension order, a pending departmental proceeding, or an ongoing on oing criminal case, any of which could legally justify an embargo on the grant of regular promotion. Merely because no specific orders have been passed regarding the treatment of the suspension period does not entitle the respondents to adopt the sealed c cover procedure. Such a course of action is not only unsupported by rules but also places the applicant in an unfair and prejudicial position. Alternatively, it may be stated that the treatment of the suspension period pertains solely to the applicant's entitlement entitlement to financial benefits and bears no direct relevance to the question of eligibility for regular promotion. This becomes even more significant where the order of suspension has already been revoked.
15Item No. 92 (C-4) O.A. No.2167/2024 6.7. No plausible explanation has been provided by the respondents as to why the sealed cover procedure was invoked solely on the ground that the suspension period has not yet been regularized. Therefore, no case has been made out by the respondents to justify the denial of the applicant's promotion merely merely on the pretext of the absence of an order regarding the treatment of the suspension period.
6.8. We may also draw a reference to CA 8387/2013, UOI vs. Shri Dolly Loyi decided on 24.09.2024 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Court, the operative portion of which read reads as under:
"22.
22. Learned counsel for appellant made a pertinent submission that the case of the respondent falls under the third clause of the above OM, i.e. Government servants in respect of whom prosecution for criminal charges is pending. Thus, the question requiring consideration is as to whether a mere grant of prosecution sanction would be sufficient to infer that the prosecution for a criminal charge was pending against the respondent. Similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman1, wherein it was held that sealed cover Jankiraman1, procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge memo/charge sheet is issued. The relevant extract is reproduced hereinbelow:
h "16. On the first question, viz., as to when for the purposes of the sealed cover procedure the disciplinary/criminal proceedings can be said to have commenced, the Full Bench of the Tribunal 16 Item No. 92 (C-4) O.A. No.2167/2024 has held that it is only when a charge charge-memo in a disciplinary ciplinary proceedings or a charge charge-sheet in a criminal prosecution is issued to the employee that it can be said that the departmental proceedings/criminal prosecution is initiated against the employee. The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only a after the charge-
memo/charge-sheet (1991) 4 SCC 109 is issued. The pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure. We are in agreement with the Tribunal on this point. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-authorities authorities that when there are serious allegations and it takes time to collect necessary evidence to prepare and issue chargecharge- memo/charge-sheet, sheet, it would not be in the interest of the he purity of administration to reward the employee with a promotion, increment etc. does not impress us.
The acceptance of this contention would result in injustice to the employees in many cases. As has been the experience so far, the preliminary investigations ations take an inordinately long time and particularly when they are initiated at the instance of the interested persons, they are kept pending deliberately. Many times they never result in the issue of any charge-memo/charge memo/charge- sheet. If the allegations are serious and the authorities are keen in investigating them, ordinarily it should not take much time to collect the relevant evidence and finalise the charges. What is further, if the charges are that serious, the authorities have the power to suspend the employee under the relevant rules, and the suspension by itself permits a resort to the sealed cover procedure. The authorities thus are not without a remedy." (emphasis supplied)
23. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the Ministry of Personnel, Government Government of India vide OM dated 2nd November, 2012 issued certain clarifications regarding the stage when a prosecution for criminal charge can be said to be pending, keeping in view the dicta laid down in K.V. Jankiraman(supra).
(supra). Para Nos. 6 and 8 of OM dated 2nd November, 2012 states as under:
"6. When a government servant comes under a cloud, he may pass through three stages, namely, 17 Item No. 92 (C-4) O.A. No.2167/2024 investigation for a criminal charge in departmental proceedings and or prosecution of criminal charges followed by either penal/conviction or exoneration/acquittal. During the stage of investigation prior to issue of charge charge-sheet in disciplinary proceedings or prosecution, if the Government is of the view that the charges are serious and the officer should not be promoted, it is open to the Government to suspend the officer which will lead to DPC recommendation to be kept in sealed cover. The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge memo/charge memo/charge-
sheet is issued or the officer is placed under suspension. The pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage is not adopt the sealed cover procedure." (emphasis supplied)
24. Considering the above position, the disciplinary/criminal proceedings can be said to be initiated against the employee only when a charge memo is issued to the employee in a disciplinary proceeding or a charge-sheet charge sheet for a criminal prosecution is filed in the competent Court. TheThe sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after issuance of the charge charge-
memo/charge
memo/charge-sheet is issued.
The pendency of investigation and grant of prosecution sanction will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedur procedure.
25. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the crucial aspect requiring examination is as to whether the prosecution for criminal charge was pending against the respondent when the DPC meeting was held.
26. It is not in dispute that the sanction to pr prosecute the respondent was granted on 2nd June, 2006 and the charge sheet was filed by CBI, after completion of investigation on 25th October, 2008, whereas the DPC to consider the promotion of Additional Commissioners of Income Tax was convened on 22nd Fe February, 2007, wherein the sealed cover procedure was adopted qua the respondent. It is thus clear that the charge sheet against the respondent was filed well after the meeting of the DPC was convened. Hence, it could not be said that the prosecution for a criminal charge was pending against the respondent when the DPC was convened. Therefore, the move on the part of DPC to resort to the sealed cover 18 Item No. 92 (C-4) O.A. No.2167/2024 procedure was unjustified and unsustainable on facts and in law.
27. Resultantly, we have no hesitation in ho holding that the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 26th April, 2013 is based on apropos consideration of facts and law and hence the same does not warrant interference.
28. The 'Sealed Cover' wherein the assessment of the respondent was considered by the DPC was presented to the Court by learned counsel for the appellant and was opened. The letter shows that the DPC assessed the respondent to be 'FIT' for promotion. Consequential steps in light of the above recommendations shall follow.
follow."
7. CONCLUSION :
7.1. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the applicant's case has been unjustly excluded from consideration for promotion, solely on the pretext that no order has been passed regarding the treatment of his suspension suspension period. Such a ground is neither legally sustainable nor supported by the applicable rules. It is further evident that, vide Office Order dated 06.10.2023, the applicant's juniors have been granted regular promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (AE (AE), Level 7 of the Pay Matrix, while the applicant alone has been ignored. Accordingly, we allow the present Original Application and direct the respondents to open the sealed cover pertaining to the applicant, convene a Review 19 Item No. 92 (C-4) O.A. No.2167/2024 Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) (DPC), and consider his case for regular promotion,, strictly in accordance with law and his comparative seniority and suitability, vis vis-à-vis his juniors. If found fit, the applicant shall be granted promotion from the due date, along with all consequential benefits,, including arrears of pay.
7.2. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
7.3. Furthermore, the adoption of the sealed cover procedure,, solely on the ground of non non-regularization of the suspension period, is found to be punitive in nature, lacking justification in law or procedure. This reflects a lopsided and callous approach on the part of the respondents in failing to pass a timely or order regarding the treatment of the suspension period. This aspect also requires examination, and therefore, we direct that the competent authority shall look into the conduct of the officials responsible for this lapse and take appropriate action, if warranted, warranted, in accordance with law.
20Item No. 92 (C-4) O.A. No.2167/2024 7.4. Pending M.A.s, if any, shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Anand S. Khati) (Manish Garg) Member (A) Member (J) /as/