PURUSHOTAMBHAI MOHANBHAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Mr. PH Pathak, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Punit B Juneja, Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Mr. Divyesh Nimavat, Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 2.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 5/3/2003 passed in Original Application No. 328/1998. The facts are not disputed that the petitioner was promoted with effect from 1/1/1991 in the pay-scale of 880-1150. All the employees including juniors to the petitioner were granted promotion on proforma basis. Proforma basis means these employees are promoted, but they are not entitled to the salary, arrears, etc. There was mistake in the seniority list committed by the respondents due to which juniors to the petitioner were promoted earlier to the petitioner and the petitioner has been promoted with effect from 1997. When the petitioner gave notice through advocate, the respondents admitted their mistake and stated that by their mistake, name of the petitioner was shown as below the juniors of the petitioner and that is why earlier he could not be granted promotion and the mistake was corrected by the respondents, but the arrears of salary, etc., was not paid since it was administrative mistake committed by the respondents and though the petitioner is entitled to the promotion earlier to their juniors and mistake was ultimately corrected, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to be promoted on the promotional post with effect from 1/1/1991. The respondents cannot take benefit of their wrong and deny promotional pay to the petitioner. The petitioner, in our opinion, would be deemed to be promoted from the date of his juniors were promoted along with pay- scale of promotional scale and any difference of salary is to be paid to the petitioner, the same be paid to the petitioner. The only reason given by the Tribunal is that it has held that the petitioner was entitled for regular promotion from 1/1/1991 and was entitled for arrears of the pay-scale, but the Tribunal restricted the benefits to one year prior to filing of the Original Application as the respondents have taken the decision in the year 1997. For the mistake committed by the respondents, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer and, therefore, the order of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall be entitled to the pay-scale of regular post of P Man 'B' from 1/1/1991.