Dismissed

Union of India v. Mandeep Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Mar 2011CWP/4406/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal order granting first out of turn promotion to a sports person under Railway Board instructions, holding no legal infirmity in the Tribunal’s view.

What the court decided

AI extract

Union of India Vs Mandeep Singh and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶2

C.W.P. No. 4406-CAT of 2011

¶3

Date of Decision: March 16, 2011

¶4

Union of India and others

¶5

...Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mandeep Singh and another

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN

¶10

Present: Mr. G.S. Bal, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the caveator-respondent No. 1.

¶12

To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

M.M. KUMAR, J.

¶14

The Union of India and its officers have filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against judgment dated 16.8.2010 (P-5) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, 'the Tribunal') allowing the original application and directing the petitioners to consider the case of the applicant-respondent No. 1 for grant of 'first out of turn promotion' from the due date with all consequential benefits of arrears of pay, allowances and seniority etc. within a period of three months.

¶15

Brief facts of the case are that the applicant-respondent No. 1 is a sportsperson. On 29.6.1996, he was recruited as Ticket Collector Railway (TCR) against sports quota. It is conceded position

¶16

CWP No. 4406-CAT of 2011

¶17

¶18

that from 1997 to 2000 he brought laurels for the Northern Railway in the All India Open Athletic Championship by winning medals. It is also not disputed that as per the instructions dated 19.6.2000 (P-4) issued by the Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, Government of India, there is provision for grant of 'first out of turn promotion' to the outstanding sportspersons by the General Managers. The relevant extract of the instructions dated 19.6.2000, reads thus:

¶19

"9.4 OUT OF TURN PROMOTION

¶20

9.4.1 Board have also decided that first out of turn promotion may be given to the truly outstanding sportspersons by the General Managers based on the following criteria:

¶21

9.4.2 WITHIN GROUP 'C'

¶22

Sportspersons who:

¶23

(a) represented the country in International prestigious meets and perform creditably i.e. medal winning performance; OR

¶24

represented Railways in the National meets on three occasions with medal winning performance in each meet.

¶25

(b) The sportspersons should have put in three years service in the existing grade, where relaxation of this limit is required, the case is to be referred to the Railway Board;

¶26

¶27

(d) As far as possible, the out of turn promotion should be to a Grade where there is a direct recruitment

¶28

CWP No. 4406-CAT of 2011

¶29

¶30

quota and his promotion should be counted against direct recruitment quota. The General Manager will, however, have discretion."

¶31

The applicant-respondent No. 1 was not granted the above benefit of first out of turn promotion despite the fact that he fulfilled all the above conditions. On 6.8.2001, he was promoted as TTE in the pay scale of `4000-6000 on his own turn. On 17.4.2006 (A-13), he represented to the petitioners for giving 'first out of turn promotion' from due date. On 13.4.2007 (A-15), his representation was declined on the ground that he should have applied for such promotion in the year 2000. Challenging the said order, the applicant-respondent No. 1 filed OA No. 434/PB/2007, which was disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated 31.3.2008 directing him to make a representation to the Divisional Manager, Northern Railway, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The petitioners were required to consider the matter and to pass a detailed speaking order (A-16). On 29.8.2008, the Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Ferozepur, again declined the representation of the applicantrespondent No. 1 on the same ground that he lacked in applying for out of turn promotion in time i.e. within five years as per instructions of the Railway Board (A-18). The applicant-respondent No. 1 again approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 612/PB/2008.

¶32

The Tribunal after considering the instructions dated 19.6.2000 (P-4) has recorded a categorical finding that the said instructions nowhere stipulates that the persons winning three consecutive medals need to apply for 'first out of turn promotion'. It was the responsibility of the Railway Administration to grant such

¶33

CWP No. 4406-CAT of 2011

¶34

¶35

incentive/promotion to the sportspersons on their wining medals. Accordingly, the Tribunal vide judgment dated 16.8.2010 (P-5) allowed the original application filed by the applicant-respondent No. 1.

¶36

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book we are of the considered view that the petitioners have not been able to show anything new. The pleas which were taken before the Tribunal have again been urged before us. We see no legal infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal. The instructions dated 19.6.2000 (P-4) as well as subsequent instructions dated 20.6.2006 (A-1) nowhere prescribes that it is the duty of the sportsperson to apply to the authorities for 'first out of turn promotion' upon winning medals on three consecutive occasion. The instructions in clear terms prescribes that it is the General Manager concerned who has to give such 'first out of turn promotion to the truly outstanding sports persons on the basis of the criteria prescribed in the instructions. There is no dispute about the fact that the applicant-respondent No. 1 answers all the conditions laid down in para 9.4.2 of the instructions dated 19.6.2000 (P-4), which are applicable in his case.

¶37

In view of above discussion, there is no merit in the instant petition warranting its admission. Accordingly, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.

¶38

March 16, 2011 Pkapoor

Union of India v. Mandeep Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Union of India v. Mandeep Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hari Pal Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Central Administrative Tribunal and Ors.

Arun Kumar Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Davinder Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Seema Vs Bimla Malik and Ors.

Basanti Devi and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.