Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Rajesh Mishra vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 8 June, 2007
Equivalent citations: [2008]1STJ219(NULL)
ORDER A.K. Singh, Member (A)
1. The Original Application bearing No. 193/2006 has been filed by the applicant Shri Rajesh Mishra (of the address given in the notice) against the action of the respondents by which they intend to reinitiate the process of promotion of the applicant to the post of Office Superintendent afresh when he has already been promoted on the aforesaid post on a regular basis vide order dated 28.7.2005.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant had been promoted in accordance with rules/instructions and is working on the post of Office Superintendent in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 on a regular basis vide order dated 28.7.2005 and has been working on the aforesaid post since then. Despite this, respondents have again initiated the process of selection for promotion of the applicant to the same post again on the ground that the earlier order of promotion was unlawful and illegal.
3. The applicant submits that the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) vide their circular dated 4.6.2001, circulated Recruitment Rules for the posts of Office Superintendent for the year 2001-2002. As per the aforesaid Recruitment Rules for the year 2001-02, Office Superintendents were to be promoted from eligible incumbents in three categories. The first category comprised of all Senior Tax Assistants having two years of service as Assistant/ Head Clerks. The second category consisted of Data Entry Operator Group 'C having two years of service in the grade and having qualified the ministerial staff examination. The third category of eligible candidates consisted of Tax Assistants having three years service in the grade and also Data Entry Operators Group 'B' having three years of service in the grade and having qualified the Ministerial Staff Examination. Applicant further submits that third category i.e. Category 'C as given in the Recruitment Rules and circulated by Circular dated 4.6.2001 comprised pre-structured cadre of Tax Assistants and Data Entry Operators Group 'B'.
4. Ministerial cadre in the Income Tax Department was restructured in the year 2001. In consequence of aforesaid process of restructuring, an order dated 26.7.2001 was issued, as per which the existing cadre of Tax Assistants was elevated to restructured cadre of Senior Tax Assistants in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 P.M. The applicant was also the beneficiary of this restructuring and accordingly he too, was elevated as Senior Tax Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000. His name figured at Sl. No. 84 of the list of such incumbents who were elevated to the aforesaid cadre. The applicant further submits that a circular dated 4.6.2001 in accordance with Recruitment Rules for the year 2001-02 was circulated for considering promotion to the post of Office Superintendent by a Departmental Promotion Committee. In pursuance of the same, the Departmental Promotion Committee met in the month of January 2002 to consider promotion to the post of Office Superintendent from amongst eligible incumbents as specified above. The zone of consideration for promotion to post of Office Superintendent was prepared in terms of the aforesaid Recruitment Rules, (March-204) which was circulated vide letter dated 4.6.2001. A requisition was also sent by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow vide his letter dated 27.11.2001 for preparation of zone of eligible incumbents for considering their promotion to the aforesaid post as per Recruitment Rules for the year 2001-02. In the aforesaid zone of eligibility, the name of the applicant figured at S. No. 22. The Departmental Promotion Committee which met in January, 2002 decided to recommend the promotion of incumbents at Sl. No. 1 to 12 in the zone of eligibility to the post of Office Superintendent against the vacancies for the year 2001-02. Out of the aforesaid 12 persons, some were further promoted to the post of Income Tax Inspectors vide order dated 8.1.2003. Thereafter, no further promotion on the post of Office Superintendents was made in the financial year 2002-03 and onwards. The CBDT, further issued another circular dated 20.10.2003 for making ad hoc promotions in certain categories of posts in the Department which also include the post of Office Superintendent. As per this circular of CBDT, the criteria for preparing the zone of eligibility was however, altered and the earlier criteria available in the circular dated 4.6.2001 was given a go bye. According to circular dated 20.10.2003, the ministerial cadre employees who had put in three years of regular service in their respective cadres alone were eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent, on ad hoc basis. On the basis of the aforesaid criteria, a Departmental Promotion Committee was convened for considering the promotion to the post of Office Superintendent on 4th November, 2004. The Departmental Promotion Committee ought to have considered and counted the three years eligibility criteria till 1.1.2004. None of the Senior Tax Assistants who were promoted on the post of Office Superintendent, on ad hoc basis, however, fulfilled the eligibility criteria of three years as laid down in the circular dated 20.10.2003. Certain promotions were also made on ad hoc basis on the post of Inspector in the Department on the basis of the aforesaid circular dated 20.10.2003 in terms of Circular dated 20.10.2003.
5. The applicant was naturally aggrieved by this change of criteria as he could not be considered for inclusion in the zone of eligibility for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent. Hence he represented to the authorities with a prayer that he should also be considered for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent in accordance with the Recruitment Rules circulated vide CBDT's dated 4.6.2001.
6. Though ad hoc promotions to the post of Office Superintendents were made on the basis of the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee held in January 2004 but no regular promotion on the aforesaid posts could be made during the years 2002-03, 2003-04 and onwards.
7. The CBDT again issued another circular dated 7.3.2005 in which it was stated that the Departmental Promotion Committee for considering regular promotions to the post of Office Superintendent for the years 2002-03 and onwards may be held in accordance with the Recruitment Rules for the year 2001-02 should be made applicable until further orders. CBDT thus, clearly and also categorically clarified in the aforesaid circular dated 7.3.2005 that for making regular promotion to the post of Office Superintendent, the Recruitment Rules pertaining to the year 2001-02 shall be applied. It may be clarified that the said Recruitment Rules for the year 2001-02 were circulated vide circular dated 4.6.2001.
8. In view of these changed circumstances, following issue of circular dated 7.3.2005 read with Recruitment Rules for the year 2001-02, the applicant became eligible for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent. Thus on the basis of the above mentioned circular dated 7.3.2005, an eligibility list of suitable incumbents was prepared and a requisition was sent on 27.4.2005 from the office of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow. The name of the applicant figured at Sl. No. 10 of the aforesaid eligibility list which formed the zone of consideration for the post of Office Superintendent and Income Tax Inspectors.
9. On the basis of the aforesaid eligibility list, prepared in accordance with circular dated 7.3.2005, the applicant along with others similarly placed incumbents, were promoted on a regular basis vide order dated 28.7.2005 on the post of Office Superintendents in accordance with rules. The applicant joined the post of Office Superintendents in pursuance to order dated 28.7.2005 and has been continuously working on the aforesaid post and has been receiving the salary of the post in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 since then. The applicant was, thus, promoted on a regular basis against the vacancies for recruitment year 2002-03. In view of these facts and circumstances, the applicant submits that as he was regularly promoted on the post of Office Superintendent vide order dated 28.7.2005 there is no legal or rational basis for reconsidering him for promotion to the same post of Office Superintendent again
10. The entire confusion, according to the applicant has arisen due to issue of yet another circular dated 8.12.2005 by the CBDT for holding Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent, which inter alia provided that earlier instructions issued in accordance with recruitment rules for Recruitment Year 2001 -02 should not be applicable to the pre-restructuring cadre of Tax Assistants and Data Entry Operators Grade 'B' as their interest had already been taken care of in the recruitment instructions of Senior Tax Assistants. According to the new instructions contained in Circular letter dated 8.12.2005, the promotions to the post of Office Superintendent were to be made in accordance with draft recruitment rules as approved by the CBDT as well as by the Deptt. of Personnel and Training. The respondents without applying their mind intend to apply the provisions of the aforesaid circular dated 8.12.2005 for deciding promotion to the post of Office Superintendents even against vacancies for the year 2002-03 against which the applicant has already been promoted on substantive basis in accordance with the then existing instructions. CBDT has also clarified vide circular dated 17.3.2006 that all promotions for the period prior to 8.12.2005 were to be effected in pursuance of the instructions issued by the Board under their letter dated7.3.2005. All subsequent promotions thereafter, were to be made in accordance with the draft Recruitment Rules approved by the CBDT and DoP&T. Thus, from the above two circulars, it becomes abundantly clear that draft Recruitment Rules as approved by CBDT/DoP&T for making promotions to the post of Office Superintendent were to be applied in respect of vacancies arising after 8.12.2005. The entire confusion, according to the applicant has arisen due to the above mentioned ambiguity in the aforesaid circular dated 8.12.2005, which provides that pre-structured Tax Assistants, who were made Senior Tax Assistants in consequence of restructuring in the year 2001-02, cannot be considered for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent under category 'C of Recruitment Rules 2001-02. According to the applicant, this provision will apply only to the vacancies available for the period on and after from 8.12.2005 and onwards. Despite the above facts, the respondents have prepared another eligibility list by misinterpreting the provisions of rules as well as established law on the subject. The said eligibility zone has been prepared by the respondents as per letter dated 12.4.2006. The name of the applicant appears at Sl. No. 64 of the list. Since the applicant has already promoted him on regular basis in accordance with CBDT's circular dated 7.3.2005 read with Recruitment Rules for the year 2001-02, the applicant submits that the action of the respondents in considering his case for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent is absolutely illegal and unlawful and therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside. The applicant further submits that on the basis of his regular promotion to the post of Office Superintendent on 28.7.2005, he is also eligible for consideration for the post of Income Tax Inspectors. He will, therefore, be subjected to irreparable loss and injury, if the respondents are not prevented from taking such an unlawful course of action in his case, as explained above. On the basis of the above, the applicant seeks the following reliefs in the O.A.:
(i) To direct the respondents not to hold the Departmental Promotion Committee for re-considering promotion of the applicant on the post of Office Superintendent in pursuance of letter dated 12.4.2006 of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax.
(ii) To direct the respondents not to disturb the applicant's regular promotion on the post of Office Superintendent issued as per order dated 28.7.2005.
(iii) To direct the respondents, to allow the applicant to continue to hold the post of Office Superintendent and to work on the said post and to pay him regular salary and allowances of the aforesaid post, every month.
(iv) To direct the respondent to consider and promote the applicant on the post of Income Tax Inspector treating him to have been regularly promoted on the post of Office Superintendent as on 28.7.2005 against existing vacancies for the year 2002-03.
(v) To issue any other writ, order or direction which this Tribunal may deem just and proper under the circumstances of this case.
(vi) To allow this original application with costs in favour of the applicant.
11. Respondents contest the original application. According to respondent Nos. 1 to 3, the applicant has been promoted to the cadre of Senior Tax Assistants as a result of restructuring vide office letter dated 26.7.2001 and his name figures at S. No. 84 in the promotion list for the post of Tax Assistants. They also submit that the applicant was promoted to the post of Office Superintendent in the year 2002-03 vide office letter No. 134/ CC 2004-05 and his name figures at Sl. No. 9 in the seniority list of Office Superintendents, so promoted. Subsequently, a circular letter dated 8.12.2005 was issued by CBDT for holding DPC for promotion to the grade of Office Superintendent. As per this letter, Tax Assistants who got their promotions as Senior Tax Assistants in 2001-02, could not be considered for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent under category 'C. Hence, the petitioner was not entitled to get promotion to the post of" Office Superintendent in as much as his seniority in the cadre of Tax Assistants had been counted which he had discarded long ago. Respondents, therefore, submit that in view of the Board's letter dated 8.12.2005, the applicant was not eligible for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent against vacancies arising during the year 2002-03. He is entitled for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent only for the Recruitment Year 2004-05. Since the promotion of the applicant to the post of Office Superintendent itself was erroneous, therefore, he has no vested right to continue on the aforesaid post in view of settled law in this regard. The applicant is, therefore, not entitled for any relief as prayed for by him in the original application.
12. The respondent Nos. 4 to 9 submit that the petitioner have been trying to mislead this Hon'ble Tribunal by saying that his promotion to the cadre of Senior Tax Assistant is only a fitment. The respondents No. 4,5,7,8,9 were promoted on the post of Office Superintendent in the scale of pay of Rs. 5500-9000, on ad hoc basis while respondent No. 6 was promoted as Income Tax Inspector and that too on ad hoc basis only. Subsequently, the CBDT issued another circular dated 7th March, 2005 for holding DPC meeting for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent from Grade 'C and 'D' posts stating therein that DPC for promotions to the post of Income Tax Inspectors, Office Superintendents and Stenographers Grade I for the year 2002-03 onwards should be held according to DOMS instructions as applicable for the year 2001-02. This virtually amounted to reversion of respondent No. 4 to 6 and 9 and hence they filed an Original Application No. 279 of 2005 before this Hon'ble Tribunal for quashing the circular dated 7.3.2005.
13. The Counsel for respondents No. 4 to 9 further submits that promotion of the applicant on the post of Office Superintendent was made by respondent No. 3 by misinterpreting the provisions of circular dated 7.3.2005, in as much as Tax Assistants, who got their promotions as Senior Tax Assistants on 26.7.2001 could not be considered for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent under Category 'C as they were not entitled to get promotion to the higher grade by counting their seniority of a cadre which they had discarded long ago. The Board's circular dated 8.12.2005 clarifies that all such pre-structured Tax Assistants who got their promotion as Senior Tax Assistants as on 26.7.2001, cannot be considered for promotion to the post of Office Superintendents as their interests had already been taken care of by their promotion to the cadre of Senior Tax Assistant. Accordingly, private respondents No. 4 to 9 submit that O.A. No. 193 of 2006 is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed.
14. The applicant as well as respondents were heard through their respective Counsels on different dates. Mr. D.K. Upadhyaya along with Mr. Sobhit Mohan Shukla appeared on behalf of the applicant. Sri S.P. Singh and Shri Vishal Chowdhary holding brief for Km. Ahsa Chowdhary appeared for official respondents No. 1 to 3 and Sri Raj Singh appeared for private respondents No. 4 to 9. In their oral submissions, learned Counsel only reiterated their submissions as above.
15. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsels on both sides and have also perused the records of the case.
16. We find that the applicant in this O.A. has been duly promoted as per order dated 28.7.2005 of the respondents in accordance with rules and the executive instructions existing on the subject. He was also promoted on the post of Office Superintendent on a regular/substantive basis on the recommendation of valid Departmental Promotion Committee, as order dated 28.7.2005 of the Competent Authority. In this regard it may also be noted that CBDT had circulated Recruitment Rules for promotion to the post of Office Superintendents vide circular dated 4.6.2001 in respect of vacancies arising during the year 2001-02. According to the above mentioned rules, the Office Superintendents were to be promoted from amongst eligible employees working in three categories, which included Senior Tax Assistants having two years of service as Assistants/Head Clerks in the first category. The second category comprised Data Entry Operator Group 'C having two years of service in the grade and having qualified the ministerial staff examination. The third category of eligible candidates consisted of Tax Assistants having three years service in the grade and Data Entry Operators Group 'B' having three years of service in the grade and having qualified the Ministerial Staff Examination. As specified in circular letter dated 4.6.2001, the 3rd category i.e. Category 'C (as provided in the Recruitment Rules under circular dated 4.6.2001), comprised pre-structuring cadre of Tax Assistants and Data Entry Operators Group 'B'. It is on record that ministerial cadre in the Department was restructured in the year 2001 and in consequence to the same, CBDT issued an order dated 26.7.2000. The cadre of Tax Assistants was re-structured and elevated to the cadre of Senior Tax Assistants in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 and since the entire cadre of Tax Assistants was upgraded/elevated to the cadre of Senior Tax Assistants, it will not be correct to regard this upgradation as a case of individual promotion. Our above view finds support from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava and Anr. S.L.P. No. 11801 of 1987 Reported in 1987(4) ATC 385, wherein the Hon'ble, Apex Court while upholding the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal had held that 'Upgradation of all the posts in a cadre, does not involve selection or promotion.' In fact what has happened in this case is only an upgradation of a cadre and it can never be considered as a case of individual promotion. What happens in case of restructuring is only a re-distribution or readjustment of posts in accordance with the need and requirement of an organization. It does not involve any separate creation of any additional posts. As held by the Apex Court in All India Non-SC/STEmployees Association (Railways) v. V.K. Agrawal and Ors. Contempt Petition No. 304/1999 in Civil Appeal No. 1481/1996 decided on 31.1.2001 that in case of restructuring of a cadre "...it would be a case of upgradation of posts and not a case of additional vacancy or post being created...". Hence the benefit of reservation too in case of reserved categories does not apply in this case. In view of this settled law on the subject, the applicant is correct in holding that up-gradation of the entire cadre of Tax Assistants to Senior Tax Assistants as a result of restructuring is a mere case of fitment and hence does not constitute 'Promotion' in the strict legal sense of the term. The arguments of the respondents No. 1 to 3 as well as of private respondents Nos. 4 to 9 that all such pre-structured Tax Assistants who got their promotions as Senior Tax Assistants on 26.7.2001 could not be considered for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent under Category 'C as they cannot legally avail the benefit of seniority of the cadre of Tax Assistants, since they discarded the same long ago, does not hold any water and is accordingly rejected.
17. In the second place, we also find that the promotion of the applicant to the post of Office Superintendent vide order dated 28.7.2005 has been made in accordance with the existing rules and instructions on a regular and substantive basis by an authority competent to do so and that too on the basis of the recommendations of a Departmental Promotion Committee as provided under rules. It is on record that the cadre of Senior Tax Assistants and Data-Entry Operators Group 'B' constituted one of the feeder cadres for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent. It is also on record that as a result of restructuring and instructions issued vide order dated 26.7.2001 in consequence thereof, the cadre of Tax Assistants was upgraded to structured cadre of Senior Tax Assistants in the pay scale of 5000-8000. It is also on record that 12 similarly placed persons were promoted on the post of Office Superintendent against vacancies for the year 2001-02 and were also further promoted to the post of Income Tax Inspectors vide order dated 8.1.2003. It is also on record that certain ad hoc promotions were also made from the ligibility list on the basis of vacancies arising during the year 2002-2003. It is also on record that a Departmental Promotion Committee, was held in the month of January, 2004 to consider their case for promotion on the post of Office Superintendent. It is also on record that no regular promotions were made on the aforesaid post during the years 2002-03, 2003-04 and onwards.
18. At this stage, the CBDT issued a circular dated 7.3.2005 with a direction contained therein to convene a Departmental Promotion Committee to consider regular promotions of eligible incumbents on the post of Office Superintendent for the year 2002-03 onwards in accordance with the instructions applicant in the year 2001-02 untill further orders. It is clearly mentioned therein that while considering the question of regular promotion to the post of Office Superintendent, the Recruitment Rules pertaining to the year 2001-02 shall be applied. These rules, as we have mentioned earlier, were duly circulated vide circular letter dated 4.6.2001. As a result of it, the applicant became eligible for promotion on the post of Office Superintendent as per circular dated 7.3.2005, along with other similarly placed incumbents. Accordingly he was substantively promoted on the post of Office Superintendent as per instructions contained in the above mentioned circular. Their promotion on the post of Office Superintendent was duly recommended by a validly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee as provided under Rules and the orders of promotion in his case was issued by Competent Authority vide order dated 28.7.2005. The applicant joined the said post and has been working on the same till date and is also receiving his normal salary etc. in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000. Since the applicant has been promoted on a regular basis and in accordance with departmental instructions existing at the material point of time, there is no question of considering him again for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent, a post on which he was already promoted substantively i.e. on a regular basis as per rules and instructions in force at the material point of time.
19. In the case of Abraham Jacob and Ors. v. Union of India 1998(2) SLJ 282 (SC) : 1998 (4) SCC 65, the Apex Court had held in Para 3.3 of the judgment that "It is a too well settled rules that the service conditions of employees, in the absence of a statutory rule could be governed by administrative instructions. There was, therefore, no illegality in giving promotion to the Junior Engineers to the post of Assistant Engineer because of the aforesaid administrative decision of the Govt."
20. It is also on record that the applicant was promoted on the post of Office Superintendent through a valid and lawful order dated 28.7.2005 issued by the Competent Authority. From the record, it clearly transpires that CBDT's circular dated 8.12.2005, wherein a departure was made from the earlier instructions in force during Recruitment Year 2001-02 relating to the cadre of Tax Assistants and Data Entry Operators Group 'B' is largely responsible for confusion in the matter. According to this circular, Tax Assistants and Data Entry Operators Group 'B' could not be considered for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent as the interest of these cadres were already taken care of in their elevation to the post of Senior Tax Assistants. We are unable to agree to this position. It is an established law that every rule and instructions has only aprospective and no retrospective application. This fact has also been affirmed by CBDT themselves as per their circular dated 17.3.2006 wherein, it has been clearly stated that all promotions for the prior to 8.12.2005 were to be effected in pursuance of instructions issued by the Board vide letter dated 7.3.2005 and all subsequent promotions thereafter were to be made in accordance with Recruitment Rules approved by the CBDT. The relevant extracts of the relevant communication are reproduced hereunder:
F. No. 41015/19/2005-Ad.VII (Pt.II) Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Direct Taxes New Delhi, dated the 17th March, 2006 To The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow.
Sir Sub: Holding of DPC for promotion to the grade of Office Superintendent Clarification reg.
I am directed to refer to your letter No. F. No. Estt. C. No. 32/CC/2005-06 dated 7/10.2.2006 on the subject cited above and to say as under:
All promotions for the period prior to 8.12.2005 were to be effected in pursuance of the instructions issued by the Board's letter dated 7.3.2005 and subsequent promotions are to be made in accordance with the draft recruitment rules approved by the DOP&T (copy enclosed).
For the financial years 2002-03 and 2003-04, if no eligible Candidates were available then such vacancies cannot be filled up. As per Board's letter dated 7.3.2005, the DOMS's instructions dated 4.6.2001/19.7.2001 in respect of year 2001-02 were to be applied in respect of cadres which were in place during the recruitment year 2002-03 and onwards. All such pre-restructuring Tax Assistants (Rs. 4500-7000) who got their promotions as Senior Tax Assistants in 2001-02 cannot be considered for promotion to the grade of Office Superintendent under the Category 'C as they can no longer get promotion to higher grade by counting the seniority of such cadre which they discarded long ago.
All the Senior Tax Assistants who were promoted by 31.12.2001 in pursuance of DOMS's instructions dated 4.6.2001 and 19.7.2001, were eligible for promotion to the grade of Office Superintendent in the year 2002-05, as they were having two regular service as on the actual date i.e. 1.1.2004.
Yours faithfully, Sd/-
(S.R. Meen) Under Secretary to the Govt. of India Tel No. 23365535
21. It is our considered view that once a person is regularly promoted on a substantive basis against regular vacancies in accordance with rules/executive instructions in force by an authority competent to do so, he acquires a vested right to hold the post and to continue on the same and is also entitled to the protection of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The applicant thereafter, can neither be reverted nor reconsidered for promotion on the same post i.e. on which he had already promoted on a regular basis through a valid order as in this case. We rely on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Arun Kumar Roy 1986 SCC (L&S) 354, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has affirmed the same principles. The action of the respondents in convening a fresh DPC for the aforesaid purpose on the basis of a fresh eligibility list is, consequently illegal and in complete disregard of settled law violation of established law on the subject and therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside. On the basis of the above, we pass the following orders:
(i) That the applicant will be allowed to continue on the post of Office Superintendent, a post on which he has been regularly promoted vide order dated 28.7.2005 in accordance with rules and relevant instructions in force at the material point of time.
(ii) Any DPC held to reconsider his promotion on the post of Office Superintendent, is held as illegal and in violation of established law on the subject. Respondents are therefore, restrained from holding any fresh DPC, in the matter, in future.
(iii) Since an Office Superintendent is also eligible for promotion to the post of Income Tax Inspector, respondents will consider the case of the applicant for promotion to the aforesaid post provided he is otherwise suitable for the post and in case he has already been considered for promotion to the above mentioned post, the sealed cover containing the recommendations of the DPC be opened and acted upon by the respondents.
(iv) Parties will bear their own cost.
22. While concluding, the Bench expresses its regret for any delay in disposal of the O.A. in view of circumstances beyond its control. The earlier benches hearing the case, had to be reconstituted after the posting of a regular member in the Tribunal on 21.11.2006. But unfortunately, due to recurring attacks of pneumonia, he had to proceed on leave, intermittently for treatment during the intervening period. The parties involved in the dispute also took an abnormal time in completion of statutory formalities like filing of counter affidavits by respondents and amendments in the O.A. etc., by the applicant as per direction of the earlier Bench. Delay, on any account, are unfortunate and hence regretted.
With these observations, the O.A. No. 193 of 2006 is allowed with consequential relief in favour of the applicant as prayed for by him in the O.A.