UNION OF INDIA Vs. MAHAVIR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT Mahavir Prasad is a member of the Armed Forces Headquarters Civil Service. Working as a Section Officer the next promotional post was that of a Deputy Director. Notwithstanding he being eligible for promotion and coming with the zone of consideration for the vacancy year 2002-2003 he could not earn a promotion because of the fact that the seniority of Section Officers was in litigation; the matter resolving itself in the year 2008 when the Supreme Court settled the issue. A revised seniority list of Section Officers was required to be issued which was done on August 13, 2008. Thereafter a DPC was constituted to prepare the select panel and since it was noticed that vacancies for the post of Deputy Director had accrued for the year 2001- 2002 till the year 2004-2005, as required by law, select list was prepared yearwise and Mahavir Prasad found himself empanelled at serial No.1 of the select list for the year 2002-2003. But the fruit of the empanelment eluded him because of the fact that on September 09, 2008 a memorandum was served upon him enclosing therewith a charge-sheet for a major penalty proceeding under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 resulting in a penalty order dated February 07, 2011 imposing stoppage of one increment for 2 years without cumulative effect being inflicted.

(2.) THE department took the stand that when the DPC met on May 05, 2011, after the seniority list was revised on August 13, 2008, the respondent had been issued a charge-sheet and thus the promotion had to be kept pending till the disciplinary proceeding reached the destination, which it did on February 07, 2011, when the order levying penalty was issued. The respondent took the stand that the vacancy to which he had to be promoted pertained to the year 2002-2003 and the DPC which met in the year 2009 was recommending the panel for the year 2002-2003 and thus the factual situation which had to be considered was by transporting oneself back to the year 2002-2003.

(3.) WE would like to speak a word on the order passed by the Tribunal compelling Mahavir Prasad to file the second Original Application. Whereas law prohibits different causes of action being merged in a singular action, law compels different reliefs flowing out of the same cause of action to be claimed in a singular action. This simple principle of law is often overlooked by the Tribunal because we find in many cases the Tribunal compelling applicants before it to file separate Original Applications pertaining to different reliefs prayed for. For guidance of the Tribunal we have written as aforenoted and hope that in future the Tribunal would keep in mind the distinction between merger of various causes of action and different reliefs flowing from the same cause of action.