1. In response to our order dated 28-01- 2011 respondents No. 1 to 4 have produced the original record pertaining to petitioner's promotion as Assistant Material Manager (senior scale). With consent of the learned counsel for the parties the petition is heard finally.
2. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against an order dated 29- 12-2010 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur, in Original Application No. 1079 of 2010.
3. The Original Application before the Tribunal was at the instance of respondent No. 5 herein, who sought quashment of order dated 15-12-2010 whereby petitioner herein was promoted as ad-hoc Assistant Material Manager (senior scale) in the scale Rs. 15600- 39100, GP Rs. 6600/- . The challenge was on the ground of seniority. It was claimed by respondent No. 5 in said Original Application that petitioner herein since was junior cannot be allowed to supersede even on adhoc basis.
4. The Tribunal on the very first date of hearing taking cognizance of the caveat preferred by petitioner herein decided the Original Application. While declining to interfere with the order dated 15- 12-2010, the Tribunal, however, directed the official respondents to decide the matter of seniority within a period of 60 days. While directing so it also observed that the promotion which has been granted to the petitioner herein by order dated 15-12- 2010 shall remain till 13-01-2011 and shall not be extended beyond. The Tribunal also directed that no further order of promotion or ad-hoc promotion in respect of any employees shall be passed till the subject matter of notice dated 10- 08-2010 is decided by official respondents.
5. The order which Tribunal passed was in following term :-
"4. I have carefully considered the arguments of the parties and have gone through materials available on record. I am of the view that the present OA can be dispose d of by directing the Respondents to decide the matter of seniority within a period of 60 days from the receipt of this order. I accordingly direct the Respon dents to decide the matter of seniority within 60 days of the receipt of this order . The Respondents shall also inform all the concerned employees regardin g their decision in the matter of seniority . Since Respondent No. 5 is reported to have already joined the promotional post, I am not interfering with the order dated 15.1 2 .2 0 1 0 . However, it is made clear that since the order dated 15 .1 2 .2 0 1 0 grants promotion to Respondent No. 5 only till 13 .01 .2 0 1 1 , the operation of the order dated 15.12.2 0 1 0 shall not be extended beyond 13.01.2 0 1 1 . It is also made clear that no further order of promotion or adhoc promotion in respect of any employees covered in the notice dated 10.0 8 .2 0 1 0 (Annexure A-8) shall be passe d by the Respon dents till the subjec t matter of the notice date d 10 .0 8 .2 0 1 0 is decided by the Respon dents i.e. the matter of seniority should be decided first before issuing any adhoc or regular promotion order in respect of any of the employees mentioned in the notice date d 10.08.2 0 1 0 ."
6. Admittedly against the affirmation of order dated 15-12-2010, the applicant in Original Application i.e., respondent No. 5 herein, has not preferred any petition and has allowed the same to attain finality.
7. The grievance which has been put forth by the petitioner herein is that the Tribunal has misconstrued the order dated 15-12-2010 in treating the same as the promotion effected thereby was stop gap arrangement. It is contended that the promotion of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Material Manager (senior scale) was though on adhoc basis but the same was after the recommendation of a Departmental Promotion Committee, which was convened on 14-12-2010. It is urged that it was only the posting of the petitioner at Katni in place of Shri S. P. Upadhyay for the period from 15-12-2010 to 13- 01-2011 which was by way of stop gap arrangement as the said Shri Upadhyay was on leave during the said period.
8. To ascertain the correctness of the allegations put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner we directed respondents to furnish original record of selection. In pursuance whereof the same has been placed before us, wherefrom it is found that out of 15 sanctioned posts of Assistant Material Manager in grade Rs. 15600-39100 one post fell vacant due to retirement of one Shri K. N. Ibrahim. The post till held by Shri Ibrahim was earmarked in favour of reserve category;however thereafter applying 'P' type roster, the post was to be filled in from an unreserved(UR) category.
9. It is further observed from the record that a procedure as laid down for promotion of Group-B Officers to senior scale on adhoc basis as per Railway Board Circular No. F(GP)85/1/48 dated 31- 12-1985, Railway Board Circular No. E(GP)89/1/6 dated 01-03-1990 and Railway Board Circular No. E(GP)89/1/8 dated 17-04- 1990 was followed by the Departmental Promotion Committee, nomenclatured as Standing Departmental Promotion Committee which recommended name of the petitioner for adhoc promotion to the post of Assistant Material manager (senior scale). In pursuance whereof an order of promotion on adhoc basis was issued on 15- 12-2010 and since at relevant time at New Katni Junction a post had fell vacant, the petitioner was posted there for the period between 15-12-2010 to 13-01- 2011, the petitioner along with the promotion order was directed to man the said post for the said period. It appears that the Tribunal was led away by submissions put forth on behalf the railways that the order dated 15- 12-2010 is singular in nature and not in two part. The record, however, reveals otherwise that the petitioner was considered for adhoc promotion by the Standing Departmental Promotion Committee and not for the purpose of stop gap arrangement.
10. Since an independent right had accrued in favour of the petitioner by virtue of the recommendation by the Standing Departmental Promotion Committee culminating in adhoc promotion vide order dated 15-12-2010, the Tribunal, in our considered opinion, was not justified to have confined the said promotion till 13-01-2011. The adhoc promotion in our considered opinion ought to have been continued even beyond 13- 01-2011 till the final decision in respect of the dispute regarding seniority which was subject matter of notice dated 10-08-2010.
11. In view whereof while upholding the decision of the Tribunal affirming the order dated 15-12-2010, we set aside the following observation made therein :-
"However, it is made clear that since the order dated 15.12.2010 grants promotion to Respondent No. 5 only till 13.01.2011, the operation of the order dated 15.12.2010 shall not be extended beyond 13.01.2011."
12. The petition is partly allowed to the extent above. In case the petitioner is reverted in pursuance to the order passed by the Tribunal, he should be restored forthwith on the post of Assistant Material Manager (senior scale) right through. The petitioner shall also be entitled for the salary of said post for the interregnum as per law. However, no costs.