Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Santosh Wadhwa vs M/O Information And Broadcasting on 15 September, 2016
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
RA-21/2016 in
OA-3716/2014
New Delhi this the 15th day of September, 2016.
Hon'ble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. Raj Vir Sharma, Member (J)
1. Union of India through its Secretary,
Department of Electronics & IT,
Ministry of Communications and IT,
Electronics Niketan, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
2. The Director General,
National Informatics Centre (NIC),
Department of Electronics and Information Technology,
Block 'A', CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
3. The Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT),
M/o Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension,
Room No. 112, North Block,
New Delhi-110001. .... Review Applicants
(through Sh. Ravi Kant Jain, Advocate)
Versus
Sh. Santosh Wadhwa,
D/o late Sh. K.L. Chhabra,
R/o 23/216, Lodhi Colony,
New Delhi-110003. .... Respondent
(through Sh. R.K. Kapoor, Advocate)
O R D E R (ORAL)
Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) This Review Application has been filed by OA respondents for review of our order dated 17.11.2014, the operative part of which reads as follows:-
2 RA-21/2016 in OA-3716/2014 "3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record. We are convinced that there is merit in the contention of the applicant that her case is squarely covered by our order passed in OA-1895/2013 mentioned above. Accordingly, we allow this O.A. and direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for grant of FCS benefit for promotion from Grade-E to Grade-F from due date. In case she is found fit, she shall be so promoted and shall also be entitled to consequential benefits of pay fixation and payment of arrears.
This benefit be granted to the applicant within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs."
2. A preliminary objection was raised by the review respondent (OA applicant), who produced a copy of order dated 01.08.2016 in the case of in the case of UOI & Ors. Vs. Santosh Wadhwa, Scientist-E and Ors. (SLP(C) No. 7196/2016) in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ordered as follows:-
"Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
List this matter along with Civil Appeal No. 6359 of 2016.
Status quo, as it exists today, shall be maintained during the pendency of the appeals."
3. Learned counsel for the OA applicant argued that Review Application was not maintainable in view of the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the review applicants, however, submitted that the status quo ordered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was on a different OA in which the applicant had challenged his promotion from Scientist-D to Scientist-E whereas in the OA in hand, the issue involved is promotion from Scientist-E to Scientist-F. In view of the aforesaid submission of the review applicants, we have proceeded to hear the Review Application on merits.
4. Learned counsel for the review applicants argued that the relief sought by the applicant was in situ promotion under the FCS from Scientist Grade-E to Scientist-F w.e.f. 01.01.2011. Actually the applicant has been promoted to Scientist Grade-E vide order dated 22.04.2015 w.e.f. 01.01.2007 (page-62). Since 3 RA-21/2016 in OA-3716/2014 05 years residency period is required for next promotion to Scientist Grade-F, the applicant would be due for next promotion only from 01.01.2012 and not from 01.01.2011 as claimed by him. Thus, this Tribunal has committed an error apparent on the face of the record by allowing his O.A.
5. We have considered the aforesaid submission. We have also perused our order. The direction to the respondents that we have given is to consider grant of FCS benefit for promotion from Scientist Grade-E to Scientist Grade-F to the applicant from due date. It is thus clear from our order that we have not directed the respondents to grant promotion to the applicant from 01.01.2011. Hence, there appears to be no error in the judgment on this account. Moreover, our direction to the respondents is only to consider grant of promotion and not to grant the promotion to the applicant. Thus, there is no merit in the contention of the review applicants.
6. No other issue was pressed before us by the review applicants. We, therefore, find that there is no merit in this Review Application and the same is dismissed.
(Raj Vir Sharma) (Shekhar Agarwal) Member (J) Member (A) /Vinita/