UOI Vs. GAJRAJ SINGH & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Union of India is aggrieved by the findings of the Central Administrative Tribunal [hereinafter referred as "CAT"] which the respondent/officer approached complaining of arbitrariness in terms of promotion.

(2.) The brief facts are that the respondent [hereinafter referred to as "applicant"] was working as Assistant Commissioner of Police [hereinafter referred to as "ACP"] on ad-hoc basis from 16.11.1990 against a regular vacancy. The cadre strength of ACPs was increased to 278 from the existing cadre strength of 168 on 01.06.1994. The promotions to that post are regulated by the Delhi, Andaman Nicobar Islands Police Services Rules, 1971 [hereinafter referred to as "DANIPS Rules"]. Apparently, no Departmental Promotion Committee [hereinafter referred to as "DPC"] was constituted for the year 1990-1991. DPC held for the years 1991-1992 did not consider the petitioner's claim as he was not eligible. Thereafter, there was increase in the cadre strength. Annual DPC was not held till 1999. In these circumstances, an application was preferred to the CAT by other employees, and by orders made on 12.06.2000, several ad-hoc employees were granted regular promotions. However, the petitioner's name was excluded. He approached this Court and eventually approached CAT apprehending reversion. The position of the UOI was that when the petitioner's name was considered, disciplinary proceedings had been initiated with effect from 01.03.2000 and the resultant uncertainty to his service records did not compel them to consider his case for promotions. It was urged that rather the Central Government adopted "Sealed Cover Procedure", contemplated by the office memorandum issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions on 14.09.1992. The CAT after considering the entire circumstances and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.V. Jankiraman, 1991 4 SCC 109 held that the petitioner's eligibility for promotion arose from 1993 and during all the subsequent years after the cadre increase, right upto 1998, there was no impediment in granting him promotion during those dates, as and when his entitlement to any existing vacancy was to be considered.

(3.) It was further stated that the disciplinary proceedings relate to the year 1998 and that in the given circumstances the reference to the "Sealed Cover Procedure" was not appropriate.