Dismissed

Tulsiram Son of Shri Gheesa Lal v. Union of India

Rajasthan HC10 Oct 2024CW/16218/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition where the petitioner sought promotion, consequential pension benefits, and expungement of adverse remarks. The Court held that the petitioner lacked the requisite bench mark for promotion and, crucially, could not raise fresh grounds regarding adverse remarks and increment stoppages that were not challenged or amended before the Central Administrative Tri

What did the court decide?

Civil Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed.

Tulsiram Son of Shri Gheesa Lal Vs Union… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16218/2019

¶3

Tulsiram Son Of Shri Gheesa Lal, Aged About 63 Years, (Retired On 31.12.2015 From Carriage Workhop, Nwr, Ajmer) Resident Of 3/5, Kanchan Nagar, Dorai, Panchayat Samiti Peesangan, District Ajmer, Group (C).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Union Of India, Through Its General Manager, North Western Railway, Jawahar Circle, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶7

Chief Workshop Manager, Wagon And Diesel Workshop, North Western Railway, Ajmer (Rajasthan).

¶8

Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, Carriage Workshop, North Western Railway, Ajmer (Rajasthan), N.w.r.

¶9

Sohanlal S/o Not known R/o Not known, he may be served through Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, Carriage Workshop, North Western Railway, Ajmer(Rajasthan)

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Present in person For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.C. Sharma

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

¶13

Order

¶14

10/10/2024

¶15

Petitioner has preferred this writ petition aggrieved by order dated 01.08.2019 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in OA No.621/2017 whereby Original Application preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.

¶16

It is contended by petitioner in person that person junior to him i.e. respondent No.4 was given promotion whereas promotion of petitioner was withheld without any reason. It is also contended

¶17

[CW-16218/2019]

¶18

(2 of 4)

¶19

that he was given six promotions but ultimately the last promotion was withheld. It is further contended that petitioner was awarded punishment of reduction in rank which was challenged by him by preferring an OA. The OA was allowed in his favour by Central Administrative Tribunal and High Court has also affirmed the order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal. Consequently thereupon, the petitioner was given due benefits. It is contended by petitioner that he has filed his written arguments.

¶20

Counsel for respondent has vehemently opposed the writ petition. It is contended that petitioner was awarded with penality of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect vide order dated 25.06.2014 and the said order has not been challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal. It is also contended that petitioner was not having the requisite bench mark for promotion as his ACR for the years 2011, 2012 and 2013 were “Average” and the bench mark that he attained was six whereas requisite bench mark required for promotion was eight. It is further contended that respondent No.4 had good ACR and his bench mark was above eight and that is the reason he was promoted.

¶21

We have considered the contentions.

¶22

In the OA preferred by the petitioner, the following reliefs were claimed:-

¶23

(1) The respondents may kindly be directed to grant notional promotion on the post of Senior Section Engineer from the post of Junior Engineer from the date he became eligible or from the date person immediately junior to him was promoted on 04.09.2013.

¶24

(2) Any other relief which is deemed fit.

¶25

[CW-16218/2019]

¶26

(3 of 4)

¶27

The relief claimed by the petitioner in this writ petition reads

¶28

as under:-

¶29

(i) the impugned order dated 1.8.2019 passed by the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in Original Application No.621/2019 titled as Tulsiram vs. The Union of India & Ors. may kindly be declared illegal, unlawful, contrary to law and facts and the same may kindly be ordered to be quashed and set aside; and

¶30

(ia) and further pleased to expunge the remarks recorded in the APA Report for the year 200815(Annx.18 to 25) and further pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 25.6.2014(Annx.26) and 5.9.2014(Annx.28) and the respondents be directed to provide all consequential benefits to the petitioner.

¶31

(ii) the respondents may kindly be directed to grant notional promotion on the post of Senior Section Engineer from the post of Junior Engineer from the date he became eligible or from the date person immediately junior to him was promoted on 4.9.2013; and

¶32

(iii) it is further prayed that the promotion as Senior Section Engineer and benefits of pension and benefits and allowances alongwith interest with cost of writ petition may kindly also be given to the humble petitioner; and

¶33

(iv) any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper, be passed in the interest of justice and to grant adequate relief to the humble petitioner.

¶34

We are of the view that petitioner in the present writ petition has enlarged the scope of OA by claiming that adverse remarks in the APA report for the year 2008-2015 be expunged and quashing & set aside of the order dated 25.06.2014 whereby two annual grade increment were withheld without cumulative effect and the order dated 05.09.2014 whereby the punishment order was communicated to the petitioner.

¶35

[CW-16218/2019]

¶36

(4 of 4)

¶37

It is evident that relief claimed in the OA is different from the relief that is now being claimed in the writ petition. During the pendency of the OA itself respondent had brought to the notice of petitioner that his punishment with regard to stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect dated 25.06.2014 has not been challenged. It was also brought to the notice of the Central Administrative Tribunal that petitioner has not attained the bench mark required for promotion. Petitioner did not get his OA amended and now for the first time is raising these grounds for the writ petition which cannot be entertained.

¶38

From perusal of the record, it is evident that petitioner was not having the requisite bench mark and thus was not found eligible for promotion. The learned Central Administrative Tribunal has properly dealt with the matter and has not committed any error, hence, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, consequently, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶39

Civil Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed.

¶40

(BHUWAN GOYAL),J

¶41

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶42

HEENA/23

Tulsiram Son of Shri Gheesa Lal v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tulsiram Son of Shri Gheesa Lal v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kishan Datt S/O Kishori Lal Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Sanwar Mal S/O Bhinwaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Lokesh Saini S/O Hansraj Saini Vs State of Rajasthan

Poonam Joshi Vs Archana

Usha Suklecha W/O Late Mr. Suresh Kumar Suklecha Vs Manoj Tiwari (Rjs)

Satveer Son of Harphool Singh Vs Sh. Qamar Ul Zaman Chaudhary