UNION OF INDIA Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners has challenged the order dated 31st October, 2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.850 of 2008 titled Ashok Kumar v. General Manager, Northern Railway, directing petitioners to hold a review DPC to consider the claim of the respondent for promotion to the post of Loco Pilot/Goods Driver and in case the respondent is found fit for promotion by review DPC then to grant all the consequential benefits from the date the juniors to the respondent were promoted. The petitioners has also challenged the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in CP No.155 of 2009 titled Ashok Kumar v. Shri Vivek Sahai and others whereby pursuant to order dated 8th July, 2009 promoting the respondent notionally and not granting arrears from 25th January, 2006, the petitioners were directed to grant all the arrears from the date the juniors to the respondent were promoted.

(2.) While directing the petitioners to hold a review DPC, the Tribunal had noted in its order dated 31st October, 2008 that since methodology of promotion had not been followed by the DPC as per the rules and procedures, which was challenged by the respondent as his service record from Nagpur Division was not called before declaring the panel for promotion and service record of only 16 days' working of respondent in Delhi was considered, the petitioners were directed to hold a review DPC to consider the claim of the respondent for promotion after considering all the relevant material in accordance with the rules. The Tribunal had categorically held that considering only the working report of 16 days in Delhi Division was not appropriate for not including the respondent in the panel of promotion.

(3.) The order dated 31st October, 2008 was not challenged by the petitioners rather after holding a review DPC an order dated 8th July, 2009 was passed allowing promotion to the respondent. However, while promoting the respondent, he was promoted notionally without granting the arrears from the date the juniors to the respondent were promoted. The order dated 31st October, 2008 which was not challenged by the petitioners was categorical that in case the respondent is found fit for promotion by the review DPC, the respondent shall be entitled to all consequential benefits from the date his juniors has been promoted. If order dated 31st October, 2008 was not challenged and rather review DPC was held and the respondent was promoted from 8th July, 2009, why the respondent shall not be entitled for arrears from 25th January, 2006 when juniors to the respondents were promoted has not been explained by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners has challenged the order dated 31st October, 2008 the in the present petition after holding a review DPC and recommending promotion of the respondent. In the circumstances petitioners cannot impugn the said order. For promotion of the respondent, his entire record had to be considered and not for just 16 days when he was posted at Delhi. The Tribunal while passing the order had also held that in case of respondent shall be found suitable for promotion by review DPC, he shall also be entitled for all the consequential benefits. Despite the specific order to hold the review DPC and in case the respondent is found fit for promotion, grant all consequential benefits, the respondent had been given only notional promotion. The respondent, therefore, had filed a contempt petition being CP No.155 of 2009 which was also disposed of by order dated 9th July, 2009 directing the petitioner to pay actual arrears accrued to the respondent within a period of one month.