K.B. Asthana Vs. the Union of India (Through Secretary) Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue, North Block New Delhi and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/940387
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided OnApr-02-2012
Case NumberO.A.No.1086 of 2012 & M.A.No.829 of 2012
JudgeTHE HONOURABLE MR. M.L. CHAUHAN, MEMBER (J) & THE HONOURABLE MRS. MANJULIKA GAUTAM, MEMBER (A)
AppellantK.B. Asthana
RespondentThe Union of India (Through Secretary) Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue, North Block New De
Advocates:For the Applicant: V.P.S. Tyagi, Advocate. For the Respondents: ------
Excerpt:
oral: m.l. chauhan, j. 1. the applicant has filed the present oa, thereby praying for the following reliefs:- “(a) direct the respondents to approximately fix the applicants pay by accord of notional promotion at par with the similarly situated shri d.v. handa who had been arbitrarily granted promotion to higher cadre than the applicant and accord the consequential benefits pensionary and otherwise with pay of arrears worked out with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date it fell due, till it is paid keeping in view the fixation of pension as per the vi-th pay commissions reports as decided by the hon’ble cat (pb) new delhi in full judgment. (b) pass any order or direction as deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (c) award the cost of this oa in favour of the applicant against the respondents.” 2. briefly stated, facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed as sub inspector on 23.5.1959 in the department of customs and central excise. he was thereafter appointed as temporary inspector on 18.9.1970 and confirmed on 20.11.1977. the applicant was subsequently promoted to the post of inspector sg w.e.f. 1.9.1984 and became superintendent on 1.6.1989. 3. the grievance of the applicant in this case is that he should have been granted promotion to the post of superintendent when such promotion was given to one shri dharam vir handa. it may be stated here that shri dharam vir handa was initially appointed as inspector (og) on 6.7.1970 whereas the applicant was promoted as inspector (og) on 18.9.1970, i.e., two months later than him. no doubt the promotion was given to the post of inspector sg on the same date, i.e., on 1.9.1984 but shri dharam vir handa was granted promotion to the post of superintendent on 10.12.1984, i.e., four and half years earlier than the applicant, who was promoted to the post of superintendent on 1.6.1989. 4. it may be further stated here that the applicant has retired on superannuation on 31.8.2000 but he is raising claim regarding his promotion to the post of superintendent w.e.f. 10.12.1984 by filing the present oa after a lapse of about 27 years and about 11 and half years after his retirement on superannuation. 5. from the material placed on record, it is evident that the applicant has issued a legal notice under section 80 of cpc to the respondents on 19.8.2005 and the reply to the said notice was given by the respondent’s counsel vide impugned order dated 26.12.2005 (annexure a-2) with the oa whereby it was specifically stated that shri dharam vir handa was senior to the applicant and thus he was rightly promoted from inspector to the post of superintendent. it has further been stated that in the seniority list of temporary inspector (og) as on 1.1.1976 circulated by a.c central excise headquarters, allahabad vide c.no.ii(3) 45-et/76 dated 17.5.1976, shri dharam vir handa is shown at sl.no.11 and his date of appointment is shown as 6.7.1970 whereas in the same list the applicant has been shown at sl.no.62 and his date of appointment is shown as 18.9.1970. it is further stated that shri dharam vir handa was promoted as inspector on 6.7.1970 from the grade of stenographer whereas the applicant was promoted as inspector on 18.9.1970. thus, shri dharam vir handa was senior to the applicant. 6. as already stated above, the applicant has not challenged the validity of the order dated 26.12.2005 and his subsequent representation will not condone the delay. fact remains that shri dharam vir handa was senior to the applicant in the feeder grade of inspector (og) as per seniority list dated 17.5.1976 whereby his name is shown as sl.no. 11 and applicant’s name is shown at sl.no.62. the applicant has not challenged the validity of the said seniority list at any point of time. 7. that apart, based upon this seniority list, shri dharam vir handa was promoted to the post of superintendent on 10.12.1984 whereas the applicant was promoted to the same post after four and a half years later, i.e., on 1.6.1989. the applicant has neither made any grievance regarding his seniority whereby he was shown junior to shri dharam vir handa, nor has he made any grievance regarding promotion of shri dharam vir handa as superintendent on 10.12.1984 and subsequently when he was promoted on 1.6.1989. thus, the stale claim of the applicant cannot be entertained at this stage. even otherwise also, the applicant has not made out any case for grant of relief, as admittedly shri dharam vir handa was not junior to the applicant. 8. for the foregoing reasons, the oa is dismissed. 9. in view of the dismissal of the oa, no order is required to be passed on ma-829/2012, which shall stand disposed of.
Judgment:

ORAL:

M.L. Chauhan, J.

1. The applicant has filed the present OA, thereby praying for the following reliefs:-

“(a) Direct the Respondents to approximately fix the applicants pay by accord of notional promotion at par with the similarly situated Shri D.V. Handa who had been arbitrarily granted promotion to higher Cadre than the applicant and accord the consequential benefits pensionary and otherwise with pay of Arrears worked out with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date it fell due, till it is paid keeping in view the fixation of pension as per the VI-th Pay Commissions Reports as decided by the Hon’ble CAT (PB) New Delhi in full Judgment.

(b) Pass any order or direction as deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(c) Award the cost of this OA in favour of the Applicant against the respondents.”

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed as Sub Inspector on 23.5.1959 in the Department of Customs and Central Excise. He was thereafter appointed as temporary Inspector on 18.9.1970 and confirmed on 20.11.1977. The applicant was subsequently promoted to the post of Inspector SG w.e.f. 1.9.1984 and became Superintendent on 1.6.1989.

3. The grievance of the applicant in this case is that he should have been granted promotion to the post of Superintendent when such promotion was given to one Shri Dharam Vir Handa. It may be stated here that Shri Dharam Vir Handa was initially appointed as Inspector (OG) on 6.7.1970 whereas the applicant was promoted as Inspector (OG) on 18.9.1970, i.e., two months later than him. No doubt the promotion was given to the post of Inspector SG on the same date, i.e., on 1.9.1984 but Shri Dharam Vir Handa was granted promotion to the post of Superintendent on 10.12.1984, i.e., four and half years earlier than the applicant, who was promoted to the post of Superintendent on 1.6.1989.

4. It may be further stated here that the applicant has retired on superannuation on 31.8.2000 but he is raising claim regarding his promotion to the post of Superintendent w.e.f. 10.12.1984 by filing the present OA after a lapse of about 27 years and about 11 and half years after his retirement on superannuation.

5. From the material placed on record, it is evident that the applicant has issued a legal notice under Section 80 of CPC to the respondents on 19.8.2005 and the reply to the said notice was given by the respondent’s counsel vide impugned order dated 26.12.2005 (Annexure A-2) with the OA whereby it was specifically stated that Shri Dharam Vir Handa was senior to the applicant and thus he was rightly promoted from Inspector to the post of Superintendent. It has further been stated that in the seniority list of temporary Inspector (OG) as on 1.1.1976 circulated by A.C Central Excise Headquarters, Allahabad vide C.No.II(3) 45-ET/76 dated 17.5.1976, Shri Dharam Vir Handa is shown at Sl.No.11 and his date of appointment is shown as 6.7.1970 whereas in the same list the applicant has been shown at Sl.No.62 and his date of appointment is shown as 18.9.1970. It is further stated that Shri Dharam Vir Handa was promoted as Inspector on 6.7.1970 from the grade of Stenographer whereas the applicant was promoted as Inspector on 18.9.1970. Thus, Shri Dharam Vir Handa was senior to the applicant.

6. As already stated above, the applicant has not challenged the validity of the order dated 26.12.2005 and his subsequent representation will not condone the delay. Fact remains that Shri Dharam Vir Handa was senior to the applicant in the feeder grade of Inspector (OG) as per seniority list dated 17.5.1976 whereby his name is shown as Sl.No. 11 and applicant’s name is shown at Sl.No.62. The applicant has not challenged the validity of the said seniority list at any point of time.

7. That apart, based upon this seniority list, Shri Dharam Vir Handa was promoted to the post of Superintendent on 10.12.1984 whereas the applicant was promoted to the same post after four and a half years later, i.e., on 1.6.1989. The applicant has neither made any grievance regarding his seniority whereby he was shown junior to Shri Dharam Vir Handa, nor has he made any grievance regarding promotion of Shri Dharam Vir Handa as Superintendent on 10.12.1984 and subsequently when he was promoted on 1.6.1989. Thus, the stale claim of the applicant cannot be entertained at this stage. Even otherwise also, the applicant has not made out any case for grant of relief, as admittedly Shri Dharam Vir Handa was not junior to the applicant.

8. For the foregoing reasons, the OA is dismissed.

9. In view of the dismissal of the OA, no order is required to be passed on MA-829/2012, which shall stand disposed of.