The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order granting retrospective promotion. The Court held that while general policy opposes retrospective promotions, fairness requires extending similar benefits granted to others under Supreme Court directions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND
HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE ANIS
WRIT PETITION No.29787 OF 2010
ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to Order, dated 23.08.2010, passed in O.A. No.336 of 2009 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’), and quash the same.
2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present writ petition may be stated as follows:
The 1st respondent - applicant was appointed as Technical Assistant (Geo-physics) on 28.10.1975. He was promoted as Scientist–C on 03.03.2008. As per the recruitment rules for the post of Scientist-C, the Officer, who completes five years of regular service in the grade of Scientist–B becomes eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Scientist–C under Flexible Complementing Scheme (for short ‘FCS’). Since the promotion under FCS is in-situ promotion, and as the applicant had completed five years of regular service in the year 1997, he was eligible for promotion to the post of Scientist-C with effect from 01.01.1998. The date of interview for promotion to the post of Scientist–C was fixed on 27.05.1999, but it was postponed due to interim orders, passed by various Benches of the Tribunal. Ultimately, the applicant appeared for interview on 27.05.2002. The case of the applicant is on par with the cases of Dr.M.N. Khan and I.K. Sharma, but in pursuance of the directions given by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, the Government had antedated the promotion of those two persons with effect from 01.10.1988. Therefore, a proposal for antedating of promotion under FCS to the grade of Scientist-C and Scientist-D from the date of
eligibility with all consequential benefits was sent to the Ministry of Water Resources. But, the Ministry, vide letter dated 27.11.2009, informed the Director of Central Ground Water Board that the Department of Personnel & Training had not agreed to the proposal of retrospective promotion under FCS. Therefore, the applicant filed the O.A. The Tribunal allowed the O.A. directing the respondents therein to grant promotion to the applicant to the post of Scientist-C with the benefit of Flexible Complimenting Scheme with effect from the date of his eligibility i.e. 01.01.1998 with all consequential benefits. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent.
4. Learned counsel representing the learned Assistant Solicitor General contended that as per the Office Memorandum issued by the Department of Personnel & Training, dated 17.07.2002, no promotion would be granted with retrospective effect under FCS, that it is against the general policy of the Government, and the Tribunal had failed to take the said letter into consideration and therefore, he prays to set aside the same order passed by the Tribunal.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent contended that as per the office order, dated 03.03.2008, the competent authority ordered promotions to ‘17’ persons, under the FCS during the assessment years indicted against their names, and in respect of the petitioner the assessment year is 1998, and that office order was given in compliance with the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, dated 17.04.2007 in Transfer Petition Nos.197-220 of 2005, and the Tribunal had rightly allowed the O.A., and that order needs no interference.
6. The Office Order, dated 03.03.2008 was implemented in
respect of ‘7’ persons, namely, Sri Ashok Kumar, Sri U. Srivastava, Sri Anurag Khanna, Dr.A.Asokan, Sri N.C. Nayak, Sri Avanish Kant and Sri Dinesh Tiwari, and promotions were given under FCS in office Order No.785/11, dated 29.09.2011. The names of these ‘7’ persons were shown in the office order, dated 03.03.2008. From these proceedings, it can safely be said that the Government adopted pick and chose method in giving FCS promotions and denied the same to the other similarly situated persons.
7. No doubt, promotions under FCS cannot be given with retrospective effect as per the proceedings, dated 17.07.2002, but at the same time, as per the orders of the Supreme Court of India, the competent authority ordered for issuance of promotions under FCS to the 1st respondent - applicant and 16 others by proceedings dated 03.03.2008. In pursuance of the directions given by the Supreme Court, the benefit has been extended to 7 persons. It is also brought to the notice of this Court the office note dated 24.06.2014, where the benefit was extended in pursuance of the directions given by the Supreme Court to one Mr. Avinash Khanth, whose name was also included in the office order dated 03.03.2008. Therefore, in all fairness, the petitioners ought to have extended the same benefit to the 1st respondent on the ground of equality. The Tribunal, after considering the same, directed the petitioners to give promotion to the grade of Scientist–C under FCS to the 1st respondent from the date on which he is eligible for promotion, i.e., assessment year 1998. That order needs no interference by this Court.
8. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
____________ K.C. BHANU, J
___ ANIS, J June 26, 2014. KTL
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Tribunal order directing retrospective promotion of an employee under the Flexible Compelling Scheme.
Technical Assistant (Geo-physics)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench
K.C. Bhanu
Anis
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
