DILIPBHAI D TREVEDI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) XXX XXX XXX

(2.) The brief facts of the case is that the present petitioner was working as 'Postal Assistant' and his case was not considered for promotion as in the departmental proceedings he was awarded punishment of withholding of one increment. The petitioner had challenged the said order by way of filing an appeal before the appellate Authority. The appellate Authority, vide order dated 11.11.1981 partly allowed the appeal whereby the order of penalty of withholding of increment was reduced to that of censure. The petitioner for the first time made a representation on 28.1.2002 and requested to give promotion w.e.f. 18.1.1985 instead of 5.8.1985. Pursuant thereto, the Authority asked to convene the review DPC. In the meantime, the petitioner had filed an application, being OA. No.373 of 2002, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad. The Tribunal, vide its order dated 9thof April, 2003, had directed the respondents to constitute a review DPC and consider the case of the petitioner for antedating of his promotion and to take an appropriate decision. Accordingly, a review DPC was convened on 10.10.2003 to consider the case of the petitioner and the DPC had finally concluded that the question of giving of antedated promotion to the petitioner did not arise as the petitioner did not work physically in PA cadre prior to 5.8.1985 and that he was rightly promoted w.e.f. 21.8.2001. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner again approached the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench at Ahmedabad by filing an application, being OA. No.213 of 2004, which was partly allowed vide order dated 17.3.2005, by which the petitioner has been granted promotion to PA cadre on 18.01.1985 but the arrears has been restricted to one year from the date of filing of O.A. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the present petition is filed seeking a declaration that the impugned decision in OA. 213 of 2004 restricting payment of arrears of the petitioner from one year prior to filing of OA. No. 213 of 2004 as illegal and arbitrary.

(3.) Learned Counsel Mr. Pathak for the petitioner has urged that looking to the earlier order passed in OA. No. 373 of 2002 and the order passed in OA. No. 213 of 2003, the petitioner was entitled for promotion w.e.f. 1985 and, therefore, he was also entitled for arrears of difference of salary from 1985 on the promotional post or at least from the date of earlier order passed by the Tribunal in OA.