Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Harcharan Lal vs Cabinet Secretariat on 7 December, 2022
1
OA No.3576/2015
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
OA No.3576/2015
MA No.3216/2015
Reserved on: 25.11.2022
Pronounced on:07.12.2022
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
1. Sh. HARCHARAN LAL
Scientist- E
Aged about 59 years
S/o Late Sh. Badlu Ram
R/o Flat No. 40, AIIMS Aptts,
Sector- 21D, Faridabad
Haryana.
Posted at:
Electronics Regional Test Laboratory (North), Delhi
Department of Electronics and Information Technology,
Standardization, Testing and Quality Certification
Directorate
6, C.G.O. Complex, Electronics Niketan,
New Delhi - 110020
2 Sh. Ashok Kumar Rohilla
Scientist- E
Aged about 54 years
S/o Late Shri Radhey Shyam
R/o B-252, Kendriya Vihar,
Sector-51, Noida, UP
Posted at:
Electronics Regional Test Laboratory (North), Delhi
Department of Electronics and Information Technology,
Standardization, Testing and Quality Certification
Directorate,
6, C.G.O. Complex, Electronics Niketan,
New Delhi - 110020
2
OA No.3576/2015
3 Sh. Ashok Kumar
Scientist-D
Aged about 52 years
S/o Sh. Lal Mani
R/o 3021, Sector- 4A,
Vasundhara, U.P.
Posted at:
Electronics Regional Test Laboratory (North), Delhi
Department of Electronics and Information Technology
Standardization, Testing and Quality Certification
Directorate,
6, C.G.O. Complex, Electronics Niketan,
New Delhi - 110020
4. Sh. A.U. Khan
Scientist- D
Aged about 53 years
S/o Sh. S.U. Khan
R/o K-59-A, Second Floor
Batla House, Jamia Nagar,
Delhi
Posted at:
Electronics Regional Test Laboratory (North), Delhi
Department of Electronics and Information Technology.
Standardization, Testing and Quality Certification
Directorate,
6, C.G.O. Complex, Electronics Niketan,
New Delhi - 110020
5. Sh. Gyan Chand
Scientist-C
Aged about 54 years
S/o Sh. Roop Chand
R/o B-46, PKT-5,
Kendriya Vihar-ll,
Sector 82, Noida 201304
U.P
Posted at
Electronics Regional Test Laboratory (North), Delhi
Department of Electronics and Information Technology
Standardization, Testing and Quality Certification
Directorate,
6, C.G.O. Complex, Electronics Niketan,
New Delhi - 110020
3
OA No.3576/2015
6. Sh. Jitender Saigal
Scientist-E
Aged about 51 years
S/o Late Sh. R.N. Saigal
R/o 166-B, Pocket C
Mayur Vihar, Phase-ll
New Delhi- 110091
Posted at:
Electronics Regional Test Laboratory (North), Delhi
Department of Electronics and Information Technology,
Standardization, Testing and Quality Certification
Directorate,
6, C.G.O. Complex, Electronics Niketan,
New Delhi - 110020
7. Smt. Kaushal Singhal
Scientist- C
Aged about 56 years
D/o Late Sh. R.K. Gupta
R/o 5/98, Sector-ll,
Rajender Nagar,
Sahibabad, U.P.
Posted at:
Electronics Regional Test Laboratory (North), Delhi
Department of Electronics and Information Technology,
Standardization, Testing and Quality Certification
Directorate,
6, C.G.O. Complex, Electronics Niketan,
New Delhi - 110020
8. Sh. Mahendra Pal Sharma
Scientist-G
Aged about 59 years
S/o Late Sh. L.P. Sharma
R/o 315 C, Pkt - J &K,
Dilshad Garden
Delhi- 110095
Posted at
Electronics Regional Test Laboratory (North), Delhi
Department of Electronics and Information Technology,
Standardization, Testing and Quality Certification
Directorate,
6, C.G.O. Complex, Electronics Niketan,
New Delhi - 110020
4
OA No.3576/2015
9. Smt. Manjula Bhati
Scientist-E
Aged about 52 years
D/o Late Sh. S.C. Gogna
R/o E-212, IInd Floor
G.K. - I1, New Delhi-110048
Posted at
Electronics Regional Test Laboratory (North), Delhi
Department of Electronics and Information Technology.
Standardization, Testing and Quality Certification
Directorate,
6, C.G.O. Complex, Electronics Niketan,
New Delhi - 110020
10. Sh. Manoj Kumar
Scientist-C
Aged about 51 years
S/o Sh. Tej Pal
R/o N-504, Sector 9,
R.K. Puram
New Delhi- 110022
Posted at
Electronics Regional Test Laboratory (North), Delhi
Department of Electronics and Information Technology,
Standardization, Testing and Quality Certification
Directorate,
6, C.G.O. Complex, Electronics Niketan,
New Delhi 110020
11. Sh. Manoj Kumar Saxena
Scientist- E
Aged about 54 years
S/o Late Sh. K.P. Saxena
R/o B-541, Kendriya Vihar
Sector-51, Noida
U.P.
Posted at
Electronics Regional Test Laboratory (North), Delhi
Department of Electronics and Information Technology,
Standardization, Testing and Quality Certification
Directorate,
6, C.G.O. Complex, Electronics Niketan,
New Delhi - 110020
5
OA No.3576/2015
12. Smt. Poonam Singh
Scientist-E
Aged about 56 years
D/o Sh. Desh Raj Prem
R/o 36, Vishal Aptts.,
5, Vasundhara Enclave,
New Delhi- 110096
Posted at:
Electronics Regional Test Laboratory (North), Delhi
Department of Electronics and Information Technology,
Standardization, Testing and Quality Certification
Directorate,
6, C.G.O. Complex, Electronics Niketan,
New Delhi - 110020
13. Sh. Pradeep Gunjyal
Scientist-E
Aged about 47 years
S/o Sh. Bahadur Singh Gunjyal
R/o J-70/5-1, Dilshad Colony,
Delhi- 110095
Posted at:
Electronics Regional Test Laboratory (North), Delhi
Department of Electronics and Information Technology,
Standardization, Testing and Quality Certification
Directorate,
6, C.G.O. Complex, Electronics Niketan,
New Delhi - 110020
14. Sh. Prahlad Gupta
Scientist- E
Aged about 48 years
S/o Late Sh. R.K.Sahu
R/o R-171, HIG Duplex,
Sector 12, Pratap Vihar,
Gaziabad, U.P.
Posted at:
Electronics Regional Test Laboratory (North), Delhi
Department of Electronics and Information Technology,
Standardization, Testing and Quality Certification
Directorate,
6, C.G.O. Complex, Electronics Niketan,
New Delhi - 110020
6
OA No.3576/2015
15. Sh. Prabhat Kumar Gupta
Scientist- D
Aged about 52 years
Slo Late Sh. Manohar Lal Gupta
R/o A-44 (New No. A - 28),
Rishi Nagar, Shakur Basti, ,
Delhi 110034
Posted at
Electronics Regional Test Laboratory (North), Delhi
Department of Electronics and Information Technology,
Standardization, Testing and Quality Certification
Directorate,
6. C.G.O. Complex, Electronics Niketan,
New Delhi - 110020
16. Sh. Prem Chand
Scientist- C
Aged about 46 years
S/o Late Sh. Hari Kishan
R/o H.No. 4, DDA LIG Flats,
Pul Prahladpur,
Delhi- 110044
Posted at
Electronics Regional Test Laboratory (North), Delhi
Department of Electronics and Information Technology,
Standardization, Testing and Quality Certification
Directorate,
6, C.G.O. Complex, Electronics Niketan,
New Delhi - 110020
17. Smt. Rajni Yadav
Scientist-E
Aged about 52 years
D/o Late Sh. Anand Prakash Sharma
R/o H. No. 41, Sector 29,
Faridabad, Haryana
Posted at
Electronics Regional Test Laboratory (North), Delhi
Department of Electronics and Information Technology,
Standardization, Testing and Quality Certification
Directorate,
6, C.G.O. Complex, Electronics Niketan,
New Delhi 110020
7
OA No.3576/2015
18. Sh. Ram Sanehi
Scientist-D
Aged about 52 years
Slo Late Sh. Brahma Nand
Rlo 133/5, G-Block, M.B. Extension
New Delhi- 110044
Posted at:
Electronics Regional Test Laboratory (North), Delhi
Department of Electronics and Information Technology,
Standardization, Testing and Quality Certification
Directorate,
6, C.G.O. Complex, Electronics Niketan,
New Delhi - 110020
19. Sh. Radha Mohan Amarya
Scientist-D
Aged about 54 years
S/o Late Sh. P.N. Amarya
R/o H.No. 823, Sector-46,
Faridabad, Haryana
Posted at
Electronics Regional Test Laboratory (North), Delhi
Department of Electronics and Information Technology
Standardization, Testing and Quality Certification
Directorate,
6, C.G.O. Complex, Electronics Niketan,
New Delhi - 110020
20. Sh. Sulekh Chand
Scientist-E
Aged about 52 years
S/o Late Sh. Daya Ram
R/o C-57, PKT-I
Kendriya Vihar-ll,
Sector-82, Noida- 201304
Posted at
Electronics Regional Test Laboratory (North), Delhi
Department of Electronics and Information Technology,
Standardization, Testing and Quality Certification
Directorate,
6, C.G.O. Complex, Electronics Niketan,
New Delhi - 110020
8
OA No.3576/2015
21 Sh. Sheo Prasad
Scientist-E
Aged about 55 years
S/o Late Sh. Mata Prasad
R/o 564/6, IInd Floor, Govindpuri
New Delhi-110019
Posted at
Electronics Regional Test Laboratory (North), Delhi
Department of Electronics and Information Technology,
Standardization, Testing and Quality Certification
Directorate,
6, C.G.O. Complex, Electronics Niketan,
New Delhi - 110020
22. Sh. S.S. Dhiman
Scientist- C
Aged about 55 years
S/o Sh. Devi Singh
R/o A-170, Sangam Vihar,
New Delhi- 110080
Posted at:
Electronics Regional Test Laboratory (North), Delhi
Department of Electronics and Information Technology,
Standardization, Testing and Quality Certification
Directorate,
6, C.G.O. Complex, Electronics Niketan,
New Delhi - 110020
23. Sh. A.K. Sharma
Scientist- F
Aged about 51 years
S/o Late Sh. Vijay Pal Singh
R/o C-578, Street No.10,
Shivaji Square, Majlis Park
New Delhi- 110033
Posted at:
Electronics Regional Test Laboratory (North), Delhi
Department of Electronics and Information Technology,
Standardization, Testing and Quality Certification
Directorate,
6, C.G.O. Complex, Electronics Niketan,
New Delhi - 110020
9
OA No.3576/2015
24. Sh. P.K.Singhal
Scientist- G
Aged about 59 years
Slo Late Sh. A.N. Singhal
R/o Flat No.12, ERTL Quarters,
J-13, Gulmohar Road,
12th Cross, JVPD, Juhu, Mumbai-49
Posted at
Electronics Regional Test Laboratory (West), Mumbai
Department of Electronics and Information Technology,
Standardization, Testing and Quality Certification
Directorate,
6, C.G.O. Complex, Electronics Niketan,
New Delhi - 110020
25. Sh. P.K. Dutta
Scientist- F
Aged about 54 years
S/o Sh. Sushil Kumar Dutta
R/o Flat No.12, ERTL Quarters,
J-13, Gulmohar Road,
12th Cross, JVPD, Juhu,
Mumbai-49
Posted at:
Electronics Regional Test Laboratory (West), Mumbai
Department of Electronics and Information Technology,
Standardization, Testing and Quality Certification
Directorate,
6, C.G.O. Complex, Electronics Niketan,
New Delhi - 110020
26. Sh. R.C.Thakur
Scientist-F
Aged about 58 years
S/o Late Sh. P.L. Thakur
R/o 404, Akash Ganga,
MTNL Road, Mira Road, Mumbai- 401107
Posted at
Electronics Regional Test Laboratory (West), Mumbai
Department of Electronics and Information Technology,
Standardization, Testing and Quality Certification
Directorate,
6, C.G.O. Complex, Electronics Niketan,
New Delhi - 110020
10
OA No.3576/2015
27. Sh. V.K. Dhar
Scientist-E
Aged about 56 years
S/o Late Sh. Girdhari Lal Dhar
Rio Flat No. 201, Building No.3,
B 'Wing', Saki Vihar complex,
Saki Vihar Road, Sakinaka,
Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400072
Posted at:
Electronics Regional Test Laboratory (West), Mumbai
Department of Electronics and Information Technology.
Standardization, Testing and Quality Certification
Directorate,
6, C.G.O. Complex, Electronics Niketaan,
New Delhi - 110020
28. Sh. M.V. Deshpande
Scientist- E
Aged about 50 years
S/o Sh. Vinayak Deshpande
R/o A-38/003, Yogi Nagar
Borivali VWest, Mumbai- 91
Posted at:
Electronics Regional Test Laboratory (West), Mumbai
Department of Electronics and Information Technology,
Standardization, Testing and Quality Certification
Directorate,
6, C.G.O. Complex, Electronics Niketan,
New Delhi - 110020
29. Sh. Tasir Ali Shaikh
Scientist-C
Aged about 47 years
S/o Sh. R.A. Shaikh
R/o B-502, Kailash Prabhat,
C.H.S., C.S.T. Road
Kalina, Mumbai- 400098
Posted at:
Electronics Regional Test Laboratory (West), Mumbai
Department of Electronics and Information Technology,
Standardization, Testing and Quality Certification
Directorate,
6, C.G.O. Complex, Electronics Niketan,
New Delhi - 110020
11
OA No.3576/2015
30. Smt. Seema Apte
Scientist-C
Aged about 52 years
D/o Sh. Vithal Yashwant Bagul
R/o A-13, Amarhind CHSL, Sant Muktabai Marg
Vile Parle (E) Mumbai- 57
Posted at:
Electronics Regional Test Laboratory (West), Mumbai
Department of Electronics and Information Technology
Standardization, Testing and Quality Certification
Directorate,
6, C.G.0. Complex, Electronics Niketan,
New Delhi - 110020
31. Smt. P.D. Ketkar
Scientist- C
Aged about 50 years
D/o Late Sh. D.K. Kulkarni
R/o 11-12 Poornima, Pestom Sagar,
Chembur, Mumbai-89
Posted at:
Electronics Regional Test Laboratory (West), Mumbai
Department of Electronics and Information Technology
Standardization, Testing and Quality Certification
Directorate,
6, C.G.O. Complex, Electronics Niketan,
New Delhi - 110020
32. Smt. Lata Gholap
Scientist-C
Aged about 49 years
D/o Sh. Laxman Ravba Khatal
K-1/102, Neelyog Residency, Pantnagar
Ghatkopar (E) Mumbai- 75
Posted at
Electronics Regional Test Laboratory (West), Mumbai
Department of Electronics and Information Technology,
Standardization, Testing and Quality Certification
Directorate,
6, C.G.O. Complex, Electronics Niketan,
New Delhi - 110020
12
OA No.3576/2015
33. Sh. S.A. Dingore
Scientist-C
Aged about 47 years
S/o Sh. Ashok G. Dingore
R/o 103/ Sudama Prasad CHS, Mukharji Road,
Near RBT Hindi School
Dombivali (E)
Posted at
Electronics Regional! Test Laboratory (West), Mumbai
Department of Electronics and Information Technology,
Standardization, Testing and Quality Certification
Directorate
6, C.G.O. Complex, Electronics Niketan,
New Delhi - 110020
34. Sh. V.R. Chavan
Scientist- C
Aged about 49 years
S/o Sh. Rajaram Dada Chavan
R/o B-2/14/4, Sector-15,
Juhunagar, Vashi,
Navi Mumbai-400703
Posted at
Electronics Regional Test Laboratory (West), Mumbai
Department of Electronics and Information Technology,
Standardization, Testing and Quality Certification
Directorate,
C.G.O. Complex, Electronics Niketan,
New Delhi - 110020
35. Sh. S.Y. Dalvi
Scientist- C
Aged about 50 years
Slo Sh. Yashwant Daji Dalvi
R/o 304, Punit Ganga, Gokhale Road,
Dahunakar Wadi, Kandivali-West,
Mumbai- 400615
Posted at:
Electronics Regional Test Laboratory (West), Mumbai
Department of Electronics and Information Technology,
Standardization, Testing and Quality Certification
Directorate,
6, C.G.O. Complex, Electronics Niketan,
New Delhi - 110020
13
OA No.3576/2015
36. Sh. K.R. Sonar
Scientist- C
Aged about 49 years
S/o Sh. Ramesh D. Sonar
R/o A-2/301, Ritu Enclave,
Ghodbunder Road,
Post-Kasarvadavli, Thane West
Thane- 400078
Posted at:
Electronics Regional Test Laboratory (West), Mumbai
Department of Electronics and Information Technology,
Standardization, Testing and Quality Certification
Directorate,
C.G.O. Complex, Electronics Niketan,
New Delhi - 110020
37. Sh. R.D. Tumbagi
Scientist-C
Aged about 48 years
S/o Sh. Devendra
R/o 3, Subhash Niwas, Sahyadri Nagar,
Bhandup (W), Mumbai- 400078
Posted at:
Electronics Regional Test Laboratory (West), Mumbai
Department of Electronics and Information Technology,
Standardization, Testing and Quality Certification
Directorate,
6, C.G.O. Complex, Electronics Niketan,
New Delhi - 110020
38. Sh. R. D'Souza
Scientist- C
Aged about 54 years
S/o Sh. Peter D'Souza
R/o Sminu 401-A, Off S.V.P.Road, Borivalli(W)
Mumbai- 400092
Posted at:
Electronics Regional Test Laboratory (West), Mumbai
Department of Electronics and Information Technology,
Standardization, Testing and Quality Certification
Directorate,
6, C.G.O. Complex, Electronics Niketan,
New Delhi - 110020
14
OA No.3576/2015
39. Sh.N. Ravindra
Scientist- C
Aged about 53 years
S/o Sh. D. Narayanappa
R/o Flat No.44, ERTL QTRS, J-13,
GULMOHAR Road, 12th Cross,
JVPD, Juhu, Mumbai- 49.
Posted at:
Electronics Regionai Test Laboratory (West), Mumbai
Department of Electronics and Information Technology,
Standardization, Testing and Quality Certification
Directorate
6, C.G.O. Complex, Electronics Niketan,
New Delhi - 110020
40. Sh. M.M. Khan
Scientist-C
Aged about 53 years
S/o Sh. Mohd. Azim Khan
Rlo Flat No.44, ERTL QTRS, J-13,
GULMOHAR Road 12th Cross,
JVPD, Juhu, Mumbai- 49.
Posted at
Electronics Regional Test Laboratory (West), Mumbai
Department of Electronics and Information Technology,
Standardization, Testing and Quality Certification
Directorate,
6, C.G.O. Complex, Electronics Niketan,
New Delhi - 110020
41. Sh. Anil Kumar
Scientist- F
Aged about 53 years
S/o Sh. Bhikham Lal
R/o A-57, Second Floor,
Vidhya Nagar, Jagatpura
Jaipur-302017
Posted at
Electronics Test & Development Centre (Goa), Goa
Department of Electronics and Information Technology,
Standardization, Testing and Quality Certification
Directorate,
6, C.G.O. Complex, Electronics Niketan
New Delhi - 110020
15
OA No.3576/2015
42. Sh. Vasant R. Harale
Scientist- C
Aged about 52 years
S/o Sh. Ramchandra B. Harale
R/o UG-B, Vineth Engrove
Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.,
Gopal Nagar, Pehna-De-Franca,
Bardez, Goa- 403521
Posted at:
Electronics Test & Development Centre (Goa), Goa
Department of Electronics and Information Technology,
Standardization, Testing and Quality Certification
Directorate
6, C.G.O. Complex, Electronics Niketan,
New Delhi 110020
43. Sh. R.M. Khare
Scientist-C
Aged about 52 years
S/o Sh. M.V. Khare
R/o B-232/6, Vidya Nagar Colony,
Valant Betim,
Goa- 403101
Posted at:
Electronics Test & Development Centre (Goa), Goa
Department of Electronics and Information Technology,
Standardization, Testing and Quality Certification
Directorate,
6, C.G.O. Complex, Electronics Niketan,
New Delhi - 110020
44. Sh. Dinesh Kumar
Scientist-C
Aged about 31 years
S/o Sh. Shyam Lal
R/o MN-66, Housing Board
Colony, Alto Porvorim, Bardez
Goa- 403521
Posted at:
Electronics Test & Development Centre (Goa), Goa
Department of Electronics and Information Technology,
Standardization, Testing and Quality Certification
Directorate,
16
OA No.3576/2015
6, C.G.. Complex, Electronics Niketan,
New Delhi - 110020
....APPLICANTS
(By Advocate : Shri R.K. Kapoor and Shri Ajesh Luthra)
Versus
1. Union of India, through the
Cabinet Secretary,
Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India
New Delhi-111004
2. Department of Electronics and Information &
Technology
Through its Secretary,
Electronics Niketan, 6, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003.
3. Standardization Testing& Quality Certification
Directorate
Through its Director General
Electronics Niketan, 6, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003.
4. The Secretary,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
(Department of Personnel & Training),
Govt. of India, New Delhi
....RESPONDENTS
(By Advocate : Shri Subhash Gosai)
17
OA No.3576/2015
ORDER
Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J):
Applicants have filed this Original Application (OA) under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, against denial of uniform application of residency period in implementation of Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS) according to which the in-situ promotion is to be granted on completion of minimum residency period subject to fitness. It is submitted that the applicants were due for promotion in terms of FCS much prior to the date(s) from which they have been granted such promotions. The applicants filed representations in this regard for not being promoted from the date they became eligible for promotions but to no avail. Feeling aggrieved, they have filed the instant OA, praying for the following main relief(s):
"(a) direct the respondents to consider and grant the benefit of FCS to the Applicants, with all consequential benefits including arrears, along with consequential benefits and arrears in the subsequent grades as well, and to suitably modify the dates of in situ promotions by antedating the same from the dates when the eligibility period was completed by the respective Applicants in the respective grades as per the details of the Applicants regarding their dates of eligibility to the various Grades, actual date of in situ promotion to the said Grade and the dates w.e.f. which, it should 18 OA No.3576/2015 have been granted, as mentioned in the CHART annexed as Annexure A-1 with the OA;
(b) Direct the respondents to consider and grant the benefit of FCS to the Applicants with all consequential benefits, including monetary benefits, in the subsequent grades as well, and to suitably modify the dates of in situ promotions by antedating the same from the dates when the eligibility period was completed by the respective Applicants in the light of the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated
02.05.2011 as passed in S.L.P. (Civil) - 6864/2011 titled as U.O.I. v. S.K. Murti in view of the provisions of Articles 141 and 144 of the Constitution of India, and the clarification given by the Ministry of Law;
(c) direct the respondents to maintain uniformity in application of minimum residency period in all the grades;
(d) to direct the respondents to compensate the applicants for the financial loss, loss of reputation, frustration, mental agony for depriving them in an arbitrary manner the benefits to which they were entitled to in accordance with the applicable guidelines/memorandum as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is binding on the respondents."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicants are working as Scientists with the respondents and are holding various scientific posts. For the purpose of in situ promotion of Scientists, including the applicants, the Government have implemented FCS. It is submitted that they became eligible for promotion much prior to the date(s) from which they have been actually granted in situ promotions. The details of the applicants regarding their date(s) of 19 OA No.3576/2015 appointment, date(s) of eligibility to the Grade, actual date of promotion to the said Grade have been given in a chart at Annexure A-1 and the same is not disputed.
2.1 It is further submitted that despite the fact that FCS benefit is required to be extended on completion of residency period but the respondents have delayed the declaration of results. It is submitted that though the applicants should have been granted the benefit of FCS and should have been promoted much prior to the date(s) of their actual promotions, but they have been promoted much later than the date from which they became eligible for their promotions.
2.2 It is submitted that some of the Scientists (D) working in Botanical Survey of India, aggrieved by similar inaction of the respondents in not promoting them from the date(s) when they became eligible for promotions, filed OA No.826/2003 - Dr. S.K. Murti & Ors. v. Union of Inida & Ors. before the Principal Bench of this Tribunal. The Tribunal disposed of the said OA vide order/judgment dated 03.12.2003. The relevant 20 OA No.3576/2015 part of the order dated 03.12.2003 reads as follows:
"8. It may also be mentioned that the applicants of their rejoinder have stated that "there has been delay in time bound promotions after successfully qualifying the interview". Though this aspect was not fully argued at the time of hearing but it is held that the applicants were entitled for notional promotion from the date of their being declared successful by the DPC/Selection Committee. The applicants could have made such prayer. Therefore, the respondents as a modal employer are directed to look into the matter in view of the law stated earlier."
2.3 Feeling aggrieved by the above order of this Tribunal, the applicants approached Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by filing Writ Petition (Civil) No.14263 of 2004. The Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 05.10.2010 allowed the Writ Petition, holding that the authorities had not constituted the Assessment Board/Selection Committee in time, for which the applicants cannot be held responsible and, therefore, directed the official authorities to grant promotion with effect from the date of eligibility, i.e., 01.01.1999. The Hon'ble High Court also observed that the respondents cannot take advantage of their own wrong and nothing has been shown by the respondent authorities to justify non-constitution of the Assessment Board/Selection Committee in time. 21 OA No.3576/2015 2.4 Against the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 05.10.2010 the respondents (Union of India) filed SLP (C) NO.13133 of 2011 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which came up for hearing on 02.05.2022. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after hearing the parties, dismissed the SLP, upholding the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that the Departmental Review Committee/Assessment Board was required to be made effective from the date of eligibility.
2.5 It is further submitted that in another similar matter filed before Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.4098/2011 vide order dated 22.05.2012 granted similar relief to the applicants therein. The said order of this Tribunal has already been implemented in favour of the Scientists who were original applicants in OA No.4098/2011 and thus attained finality. It is submitted that though OA No.4098/2011 was filed in the year 2011 and judgment was pronounced on 22.05.2013, and the office order has been passed on 26.03.2013, but relief had been granted w.e.f. 22 OA No.3576/2015 01.01.200 and onwards. The applicants are entitled to claim the relief on the ground of parity. 2.6 The action of the respondents in not granting the benefit of in situ promotions to the applicants under FCS on completion of minimum residency period and not implementing the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. S.K. Murti (supra) is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, argues the learned counsel for the applicants.
2.7 The applicants filed representations in this regard for not being promoted from the date they became eligible for promotions but to no avail. Hence the OA.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants, referring to the pleadings argued that the respondents are liable to be directed to consider and grant the benefit of FCS to the applicants with all consequential benefits in the subsequent grades as well and to suitably modify the dates of in situ promotions by antedating the same from the dates when the eligibility period was completed by the 23 OA No.3576/2015 respective applicants in the light of the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 02.05.2011 in SLP (C) No.6864/2011 - Union of India v. S.K. Murti in view of the provisions of Articles 141 and 144 of the Constitution of India and the clarification given by the Ministry of Law on 24.06.2011 (Annexure A-
7). The learned counsel further argued that recently a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.1809/2013 titled as Iqbal Hasan and Others v. Union of India and Others, vide order dated 21.02.2014, OA No.1111/2012 titled as Vinay Kumar v. Union of India, vide order dated 27.09.2013 and OA No.2276/2013 titled as Dr. Rajesh Kapur and another v. Union of India and others, vide order dated 17.07.2014, allowed the OA and awarded promotion from the date the applicants therein became eligible for promotion, holding that their case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.K. Murti (supra). Accordingly, the OAs were allowed and respondents were directed to grant the benefit of promotion to the applicants therein under the FCS from the due date(s) with all 24 OA No.3576/2015 consequential benefits of pay fixation and payment of arrears as directed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.K. Murti (supra). Learned counsel further argued that the respondents department has been following 'pick and choose' policy by arbitrarily giving in situ promotion in certain cases in those cases of Scientists who were junior to the applicants, which has caused great prejudice to the applicants besides mental agony, frustration and financial loss. Concluding his arguments, learned counsel submitted that the applicants are entitled to be granted all corresponding benefits as per 6th Central Pay Commission as well as with reference to the respective dates of in situ promotions of the applicants by considering their date(s) of eligibility as per the FCS by antedating the same in accordance with law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and as followed by this Tribunal in a number of judgments. In support of his claim, the learned counsel for the applicants has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No.5317/2018 - Union of India & Anr. v. Dr. Anjum N. Rizvi, dated 24.08.2022, where the 25 OA No.3576/2015 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi noticing the decisions of this Tribunal in S.K. Murti (supra) and Union of India & Ors. v. Vinay Kumar, Civil Appeal No.6359/2016, decided on 25.08.2021, directed the respondents to implement the impugned decision of the Tribunal in OA No.1781/2015 dated 21.02.2017 (WP(C)5317/2018) and 10.03.2017 (WP(C)7171/2018) expeditiously.
4. Per contra, the respondents have opposed the claim of the applicants and in their counter- affidavit they have submitted that a number of Scientists of various Grades belonging to Department of Electronics and Information Technology and National Informatics Centre, had approached this Tribunal and thereafter in some cases Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, citing judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP CC No.6864/2011 tilted S.K. Murti v. Union of India, whereby claiming that being holder of different scientific posts they were due for benefit of promotion in terms of FCS much prior to the date(s) of their actual promotion on the ground that they have been found eligible for benefit of FCS from the due date but they have not been 26 OA No.3576/2015 given the benefit from the date(s) they became due. These applicants have further claimed that denial of benefit of FCS from the due date is because of delay by the respondents in conducting review/assessment in time for no fault on their parts and the respondents are solely attributable for the same. This has caused loss in their career advancement besides monetary loss. They have, therefore, sought antedating of their promotions from retrospective effect i.e. from the date of their eligibility on the basis of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.K. Murti (supra) which has been allowed by this Tribunal.
4.1 In the instant case also, a group of 44 Scientists of STQC Directorate, working in various grades have made the identical claim. Referring to the guidelines issued by the DoPT vide OM No.2/41/1997-PIC dated 09.11.1998, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that these guidelines do not provide that the in situ promotions under FCS be given on completion of the prescribed residency period. Only those officers who have completed the prescribed residency period can be considered for promotion 27 OA No.3576/2015 to the next grade subject to their being found fit as per the procedure and guidelines prescribed therein. The higher grade can be given only after the competent authority has approved the same. The learned counsel further referred to OM No.AB- 14017/32/2002-Estt (RR) dated 17.07.2002 to contend that as a matter of fact, no occasion requiring application of promotion with retrospective effect should arise in FCS cases, as it is provided in the rules for scientific posts that the Assessment Boards shall meet at least once a year to consider cases of in situ promotions. Therefore, applicants are not entitled for promotions with retrospective effect. The learned counsel further argued that in spite of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.K. Murti (supra) a coordinate Bench in OA No.3910/2014 - Dr. S.K. Srivastava & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., vide order dated 29.08.2019 has dismissed the identical claim of the applicants therein. Following the said decision of this Tribunal in Dr. S.K. Srivastava (supra) this OA is liable to be dismissed, being devoid of merit.
5. The applicants have filed rejoinder to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, thereby 28 OA No.3576/2015 reiterating their averments made in the OA. It is submitted that the respondents have miserably failed to distinguish the claim of the applicants from others in whose favour court orders on similar facts have been passed and have been implemented qua those litigants. It is further added that the judgment of this Tribunal in Vinay Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., dated 29.09.2013 has been upheld upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court and implemented. A copy of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 30.07.2014 and Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 25.08.2021 in Civil Appeal No.6359/2016 in Union of India & Ors. v. Vinay Kumar dated 25.08.2021 have also been filed along with the rejoinder.
6. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for both the parties and have also gone through the pleadings on record, including the judgments of this Tribunal, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble Supreme Court, relied upon by both the parties.
7. In order to adjudicate the controversy raised, we may reproduce the relevant part of the 29 OA No.3576/2015 judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in Union of India & Anr. v. Dr. Anjum as follows:
"10. It is observed that the Tribunal has relied on the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Dr. S.K. Murti (supra), which has been approved by the Supreme Court and consequently, held that the respondents are entitled for grant of promotion under FCS from their due dates which would be 1st July or 1st January of the relevant year and they are also entitled to arrears along with all consequential benefits.
11. In Dr. S.K. Murti (supra), the respondents therein had relied on an Office Memorandum ('OM') dated 17.07.2002, which had specifically provided that promotions are made effective from a prospective date after the Competent Authority has approved the same and the said principle is also applicable in case of in situ promotion under FCS as well.
12. Reliance was placed by the Department in that case on an OM, which specifically provided that no promotion should be granted with retrospective effect. The co-ordinate Bench in Dr. S.K. Murti (supra) noticed that the Assessment Boards had to be constituted well in advance, keeping in view the fact that 1st January and 1st July of each year are crucial dates to effect promotions.
13. The view taken by the co-ordinate Bench in Dr. S.K. Murti (supra) was that nobody can take advantage of its own wrong and no justification was shown for not constituting the Assessment Boards/ Selection Committee in time. Further, the co-ordinate Bench has noticed that the said case of promotion was not the one where promotion has to be effected upon a vacancy arising and subject to being found suitable, the petitioner therein was entitled to be promoted in situ and the situation would be akin to granting a selection scale to a person and the date of eligibility would be the date wherefrom the benefit has to be awarded.
14. The facts in the present case are identical to the said case inasmuch as, it is mandatory as per the Recruitment Rules to constitute an Assessment Board/ Committee on 1st July and 1st January respectively. The respondents herein are also not to be promoted upon a 30 OA No.3576/2015 vacancy arising. Subject to being found suitable they are entitled to be promoted in situ, which is akin, as noticed in Dr. S.K. Murti (supra) to granting a selection scale. Consequently, the respondents would be entitled from the date they become eligible.
15. As noticed hereinabove, the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in Dr. S.K. Murti (supra) was assailed before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court by its order dated 02.05.2011 rejected the petition holding that the view taken by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in directing the Department to promote the officer with effect from the date of acquiring the eligibility, is a legally correct view.
16. It may also be noticed that in this petition one of the grounds taken by the petitioner is that the judgment in Dr. S.K. Murti (supra) is under consideration by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6359/2016 titled as "Union of India vs. Vinay Kumar".
17. It may be noticed that the Supreme Court has finally disposed of the said Civil Appeal No. 6359/2016 by judgment dated 25.08.2021. In Vinay Kumar (supra), the Department had also referred to an OM dated 19.06.2016, wherein also the crucial date for consideration was stipulated as 1st January and 1st July of every year.
18. Reference was made by the Department to an OM dated 12.02.2019, which stipulated that in case of delay in completion of the procedure for conducting the review promotion of future batches for any reason, the promotion shall be effected from the date of approval by the Competent Authority.
19. The Supreme Court in Vinay Kumar (supra) after considering the above referred OMs has held that the view taken by the High Court in S.K. Murti (supra), which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, that the interest of the concerned Scientists could not be put to prejudice as a result of delay in constituting the Assessment Committee in time had been affirmed in S.K. Murti (supra) and thus, the Supreme Court was of the view that there was no reason to take a different view in the matter.
20. As noticed hereinabove, the case of the respondents is identical to that of the petitioners to that Dr. S.K. Murti (supra) and Vinay Kumar (supra).
31OA No.3576/2015
21. Reference drawn by learned counsel for the petitioners to SubRule 12, 14 and 15 of the Recruitment Rules is of no consequence for the reason that in similar circumstances, where the Department rules provided that the promotion would be prospective from the date of approval by the Competent Authority, it has been held in S.K. Murti (supra) and in Vinay Kumar (supra) that the dates 1st January and 1st July for constituting the Assessment Board/ Committee are mandatory and the Department has to constitute the Boards so that no prejudice is caused to the concerned officers. Department cannot take benefit of the delay in constituting the Board on the prescribed dates as the officers who are eligible for consideration cannot be denied promotion solely on the ground that the Board was not constituted in time as mandated by the rules.
22. Further, as noticed hereinabove, the Recruitment Rules referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner itself stipulates that the assessment 'shall' be done twice a year and the cases maturing for promotion during January to June 'shall' be taken up for assessment in the month of July of that year and cases maturing for promotion during July to December of a year 'shall' be taken up for assessment in the month of January of the next year.
23. The fact that the expression 'shall' has been used shows that it is mandatory on the part of the Department to constitute the Boards for conducting the assessment within the stipulated period.
24. In the present case, there is no fault attributed to the respondents for delay in consideration of their respective cases. The only reason is that the Board was not constituted within time and that cannot be a ground to deny the promotion from the date the concerned officers became eligible as has been held in Dr. S.K. Murti (supra) and in Vinay Kumar (supra).
25. In view of the above, we find no merit in the petitions. The petitions along with pending applications are consequently dismissed.
26. Petitioners are directed to implement the impugned decision of the Tribunal dated 21.02.2017 (W.P.(C) 5317/2018) and 10.03.2017 (W.P.(C) 7171/2018) expeditiously 32 OA No.3576/2015 preferably within a period of two months from today."
8. In view of the above, we will now consider the claim of the applicants in the background of the above decision. The respondents have submitted that the OM dated 17.07.2002 does not provide for antedating of in situ promotions. We find that this OM had already been considered by the Tribunal in S.K. Murti (supra) and more particularly in para-4 of the order of the Tribunal. Once the said decision of the Tribunal has been upheld upto the level of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the applicants are entitled to get their promotions antedated under FCS with effect from the date of their eligibility and this OM cannot come in their way.
9. As regards the plea of the respondents that in spite of the decision of the Tribunal in S.K. Murti (supra) a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal has dismissed an identical claim in OA No.3910/2014, we are of the considered view that once the decision of this Tribunal in S.K. Murti (supra) has been upheld, it has become binding on us and we are called upon to follow the same being 33 OA No.3576/2015 binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal has not considered the latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Vinay Kumar (supra) while dismissing OA No.3910/2014. Once the decision of the Tribunal has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court it has to be followed by all courts, including this Tribunal.
10. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Satrucharla Vijaya Rama Raju v. Nimmaka Jaya Raju and others, (2006) 1 SCC 212, followed in the matter of Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. Regency Mahavir Properties and others, AIR 2020 SC 4047, described the judgment in rem as under: -
"10. ... A judgment in rem is defined in English law as "an adjudication pronounced (as its name indeed denotes) by the status, some particular subject-matter by a tribunal having competent authority for that purpose..."
11. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the matter of Ambika Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P. and others, (1980) 3 SCC 719, has held that every new discovery or argumentative 34 OA No.3576/2015 novelty cannot undo or compel reconsideration of a binding precedent. It was pertinently observed by their Lordships as under:
"6. It is wise to remember that fatal flaws silenced by earlier rulings cannot survive after death because a decision does not lose its authority "merely because it was badly argued, inadequately considered and fallaciously reasoned". ..."
12. The above-stated principle of law qua the binding effect of judgment was followed by the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Gujarat and another v. Justice R.A. Mehta (Retired) and others, (2013) 3 SCC 1. It was observed as under: -
"Binding effect of the judgment
61. There can be no dispute with respect to the settled legal proposition that a judgment of this Court is binding, particularly when the same is that of a coordinate Bench or of a larger Bench. It is also correct to state that even if a particular issue has not been agitated earlier or a particular argument was advanced but was not considered the said judgment does not lose its binding effect, provided that the point with reference to which an argument is subsequently advanced has actually been decided. The decision therefore, would not lose its authority "merely because it was badly argued, inadequately considered or fallaciously reasoned". The case must be considered taking note of the ratio decidendi of the same i.e. the general reasons or the general grounds upon which the decision of the court is based, or on the test or abstract from the specific peculiarities of the particular case which finally gives rise to the decision."
13. Similarly, in the matter of State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Arvind Kumar 35 OA No.3576/2015 Srivastava and others, (2015) 1 SCC 347, it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that declaration of law can be treated as judgment in rem and its benefit is available to all similarly situated persons irrespective of whether they had approached court or not. It was observed as under:
"22. The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under.
22.1. The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.
22.2. However, this principle is subject to well- recognised exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.
22.3. However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the court or not. With 36 OA No.3576/2015 such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated persons. Such a situation can occur when the subject-matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma v. Union of India, (1997) 6 SCC 721). On the other hand, if the judgment of the court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence."
14. Likewise, the Supreme Court in the matter of Anil Ratan Sarkar and others v. State of W.B. and others, (2001) 5 SCC 327 has clearly held that administrative instructions/ circulars /orders cannot infiltrate on to an arena covered by judicial orders. It was observed by their Lordships as under: -
"Administrative ipse dixit cannot infiltrate on to an arena which stands covered by judicial orders."
15. In view of the above analysis, we allow this O.A. and direct the respondents to grant ante dated promotions to the applicants under the FCS from the date of their eligibility keeping in view the decisions of this Tribunal in S.K. Murti (supra) as upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & 37 OA No.3576/2015 Ors. v. Vinay Kumar (supra) and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Dr. Anjum Rizvi (supra) by suitably modifying the date(s) of in situ promotions by antedating the same from the date(s) when the eligibility period was completed by the respect applicants, as mentioned in the Annexure A-1 chart. The applicants shall be entitled to the consequential benefits in accordance with the relevant rules and law. The directions shall be complied by the respondents within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
16. Consequently, MA No.3216/2015 filed Rule 4 (5)(a) of Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, for joining together in single application is allowed in the interest of justice and to avoid multiplicity of litigation and also keeping in view no objection from the respondents.
17. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Anand S. Khati) (R.N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
'San.'