UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAJENDRA ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Union of India challenges the order dated 8.7.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short the Tribunal ) in O.A. No.192/05 filed by the respondent. Tribunal, by the impugned order, gave a direction to the petitioner herein to consider the respondent for promotion to the post of Junior Administrative Grade (JAG) from the date on which the vacancy in JAG occurs on his turn, if it is prior to 31.1.2005 (the date of superannuation of the respondent) on notional basis if the applicantb s name figures in the select list recommended by the DPC/Review DPC which is approved by the Competent Authority and acted upon. It is further directed that in case the respondentb s turn for promotion to the post of JAG comes against a vacancy which has arisen on a date prior to the date of his superannuation, he shall be promoted notionally with all consequential benefits of pay and allowances and for fixation of his pension and other retiral and pensionary benefits as per rules.

(2.) The short question which arises for consideration in this petition is whether the respondent, who had superannuated before the consideration of his case for promotion by the DPC, could be granted promotion on a notional basis, by requiring his case to be considered by the DPC, as and when it is held, and in the event of his being empanelled by the DPC, from the date the vacancy against which he could be promoted becomes available. The Tribunal has answered this question in favour of the respondent and that is how the Union of India is before us in this writ petition to challenge the said direction issued by the respondent.

(3.) Respondent no.1 was initially a junior grade officer of the Indian Information Service (IIS) Group `Ab which is the junior time scale in the service. On 29.1.1997, he was promoted to the Senior Grade on a regular basis. This is the feeder post for promotion to the post of JAG. Petitioner did not hold the Departmental Promotion Committee Meetings over the years with the result that the respondent was denied consideration for promotion. He was due to retire on 31.1.2005.