SANDEEPKUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsels for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner by way of this petition has approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with following prayers.

(3.) The facts in brief shorn off unnecessary details and as could be gathered from the papers of this petition as well as the order impugned deserve to be set ­out as under : ­ 3.1 The petitioner joined Indian Telecom services on 11th July 1983. The petitioner had to face departmental proceedings under Memorandum dated 22nd March 2001, which resulted into imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement as per the order dated 21st August 2003. The said order of compulsory retirement was challenged by the petitioner by approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench by preferring Original Application No.451 of 2003. The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the said application by passing the order and judgment on 29th April 2008 setting aside the order of penalty and issuing appropriate direction. The disciplinary authority set aside the order of penalty on 9th March 2010. The petitioner came to be reinstated in service in Junior Administrative Grade that would be (JAG) on regular basis w.e.f. 21st August 2001 and he was fixed below one Mr.V. Eswaran (Staff No.2246) and above one Shri Manjit Singh Dhilon (staff no.2249). The petitioner made representation on 22nd July 2010 contending that petitioner's immediate junior Shri Manjit Singh Dhilon was given ad ­hoc promotion in the SAG and regularized in the year 2003. The petitioner urged for the same treatment and benefit to him also. The petitioner was informed under the communication dated 28/29th September 2010 that the petitioner was not eligible at the time when the petitioner's immediate junior was considered and hence, the petitioner's case for promotion to SAG was not acceptable. On 4th August 2010, the petitioner was served with below benchmark grading in Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the years 1999 ­2000, 2000 ­2001 and 2002 ­2003 permitting him to make representation thereupon, if any, for seeking rectification in the grading in the ACR. The petitioner submitted his representation, which came to be accepted and the ACRs were changed from "Good" to "Very Good". The petitioner was also informed that in the order dated 12th December 2010, the authority decided to treat the entire period of absence from 28th August 2003 to 15th March 2010 as period spent 'on duty' for all purposes and the competent authority also sanctioned grant of arrears of pay and allowances based thereupon. The said order is placed on record at Annexure ­I dated 13th December 2010. The petitioner was granted Non ­Functional Upgradation (NFU) on 7th January 2011 in the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) of the ITS (Indian Telecom Service) Group 'A' w.e.f. 24th May 2010. The petitioner urged the authority by way of representation that the NFU be granted from the date when his batch ­ mate was granted the same i.e. from the year 1981 by which all ITS were granted from the year 1983 of IAS. The order dated 7th January 2011 was modified and the petitioner was granted NFU w.e.f 3rd January 2006 as was granted to his batch ­mate of 1981. The petitioner came to know that the Review DPCs was held on 9th July 2010 and 8th October 2010, which found the petitioner unfit and regular DPC was held on 11th April 2011 did not recommend his case for regular promotion to SAG though he was granted NFU in SAG compelling the petitioner to approach Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench by way of Original Application No.219 of 2011 with prayer to set aside the recommendations of the review DPC, which was held on 9th July 2010 and 8th October 2010 and sought declaration that he be declared and be entitled to be considered on regular basis for the promotion of SAG of ITS Group ­A for vacancies of 2003 ­04. The Tribunal under its order dated 16th April 2013 ordered reconsideration for fresh decision directing the respondents to hold review of the decision inconsonance with the rule and were required to pass speaking order justifying the decision and the same was required to be done within four months from the date of receipt of the order. Copy of the said order dated 16th April 2013 passed by the tribunal is placed on record of this petition. Pursuant thereto, the DPC was held on 5th November 2013 and in the same it is held that the petitioner's name was required to be recommended for inclusion in the panel for promotion into the Senior Division Grade in the Indian Telecom Service against the vacancies for the year 2010 ­11 at Sr.No.O ­A above Shri Anjan K. Datta (S.No.1). The recommendation for DPC on 11th April 2011 stood modified accordingly. This order and recommendations are placed on record at Annexure ­M in the petition. The petitioner came to be promoted on 13th December 2013 to the SAG of ITA Group ­A in the pay band ­4 of Rs.34,400 ­67,000/ ­ with Grade Pay of Rs.10,000/ ­ on regular basis against the vacancies for the year 2010 ­11 notionally w.e.f. 19th April 2011 with reference to his juniors and actually from the date of joining in the higher post. The petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of respondent authorities dated 13th December 2013 referred Original Application No.181 of 2014 for direction to hold a review DPC to reconsider his case and pass fresh orders modifying the above order dated 13th December 2013 and promote him as SAG against the vacancy for the year 2003 ­04 on regular basis and to grant him promotion to SAG from the date on which his immediate junior i.e. said Shri Manjit Singh Dhillon was granted promotion. The said Original Application No.191 of 2014 came to be dismissed vide order and judgment dated 27th June 2017 giving rise to filing of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.