(1.) The petitioner, Union of India through the General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi, has challenged the order dated 24th August, 2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in T.A. No.834/2009, titled as 'Sh.Vipul Nautiyal v. Union of India' allowing the original application of the respondent and directing them to consider the application of the respondent on a methodology evolved by the petitioner for promotion as AOM, and on his selection, to post him within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the said order. The respondent had challenged his non selection for promotion from Group C to B to the post of AOM against 30% quota vacancies. The respondent had earlier been transferred from Bangalore and he had joined to a lower post at Moradabad and was regularized in the Scale of Rs.5,000-8,000/- on 2nd August, 2002. For promotion from Group C to B, a notification dated 30th July, 2008 was issued contemplating that as on 1st August, 2007 an employee ought to have had five years service in the grade. According to the respondent on 1st August, 2007 he fulfilled the eligibility criteria, but his candidature was not considered though he was placed in the grade of Rs.5,000/-8,000/- on 2nd August, 2002 and by 1st August, 2007 he had completed five years. The respondent also contended that even before 2nd August, 2002 he had completed two years four months service in the regular grade of Rs.5,000-8,000/- as he was promoted in the regular grade of Rs.5,000- 8,000/- in July, 1997 at Bangalore Southern Railways, however, in the December, 1999 he was transferred to at Harawala Station, Moradabad Division Northern Railways.
(2.) Another plea of the respondent is that when he was transferred to Moradabad Division as per rules, he was placed at the bottom seniority, though he was spared to join at Motichur Railway Station on 12th July, 2002, and he joined his promotional grade of Rs.5,000-8,000/- at Motichur Railway Station, on 12th July, 2002 on which post he continues till today.
(3.) Though the notification dated 30th July, 2008 contemplated five years service on 1st August, 2008 in the grade which had been completed by the respondent, however, he was not considered resulting into filing of original application by the respondent which has been allowed by order dated 24th August, 2009. While allowing the original application, the Tribunal relied on UPSC vs. Satyanarayan (2009) 2 SCC (L&S), 265 and held that the notification did not contemplate continuous service of five years service and the service earlier rendered by the respondent also ought to have been considered by the petitioner, and considering the entirety of facts and circumstances, it could not be held that the respondent did not have five years service in the said grade for consideration for selection for promotion as he fulfilled the criteria.