S RAJAMANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has come forward with these two writ petitions challenging the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 20.10.1998 passed in O.A.Nos.892 and 893 of 1998. The brief facts which are required to be stated are that the petitioner, who entered service as a Telegraphist in January, 1959 was promoted as Assistant Superintendent of Telegraph Traffic in the year 1972. He was issued with charge memo on 15.05.1976. On 16.01.1979, he was imposed with the punishment of order of reversion from the post of Assistant Superintendent to Telegraphist. The petitioner's appeal against the said order was also rejected by the appellate authority on 17.05.1979. The petitioner preferred W.P.No.9808 of 1979 on 09.07.1979 and an order of interim stay of reversion was also granted on the same day. The interim order was also confirmed on 04.08.1979. On 04.09.1980, the petitioner was put back to his original post of Assistant Superintendent. The writ petition was finally disposed of on 01.02.1983 and the order of reversion was set aside, giving liberty to the contesting respondents to initiate fresh enquiry, if deem fit. Subsequently on 30.07.1987, the contesting respondents passed orders, dropping the disciplinary action against the petitioner. On 01.08.1988, the petitioner was given promotion to Group B and his seniority was revised with effect from April, 1982. The petitioner made a representation on 28.01.1985, claiming promotion to Group B with effect from 1979 and consequently, promotion to Group A with effect from April, 1988. He also filed O.A.No.206 of 1989 claiming the said relief. The said O.A. was disposed of by the Tribunal on 02.03.1991 directing the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the respondents. A fresh representation was made by the petitioner on 15.10.1993. Since it was not disposed of, the petitioner filed O.A.Nos.1377 of 1995 and 80 of 1996 and orders were passed on 16.03.1998 directing the respondents to dispose of the petitioner's representation. On 16.07.1998, the petitioner's representation was rejected. On 03.07.1998, the petitioner's claim for monetary benefits was also disposed of. As against the above orders, the petitioner preferred O.A.Nos.892 and 893 of 1998 respectively. O.A.No.892 of 1998 was disposed of by a separate order dated 20.10.1998 at the admission stage itself and in view of the orders passed in O.A.No.892 of 1998, the petitioner's claim in O.A.No.893 of 1998 was also rejected. It is as against the above orders, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petitions.

(2.) ASSAILING the orders of the Tribunal, Mr.Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the petitioner's claim for promotion from the year 1979 having been rejected in the year 1987 and such rejection could have been solely on the ground of the pending disciplinary proceedings. Learned counsel contended that when once the said disciplinary proceedings which culminated in the order of reversion was set aside by this Court in the order dated 01.02.1983 in W.P.No.2808 of 1979, in the absence of any other impediment, the petitioner's claim for promotion from the year 1979 ought to have been granted by the contesting respondents. According to the learned counsel, as things stand, when the contesting respondents failed to follow the sealed cover procedure in the matter of grant of promotion to the petitioner in the relevant years viz., in the year 1979 when his immediate junior Mr.L.Parasiram got promoted, in all fairness, when the Review DPC was constituted in the year 1987, there was no justifiable ground for the contesting respondents to have declined promotion to the petitioner from the year 1979. According to the learned counsel, the grant of promotion from the year 1982 was not justified and therefore the order of the Tribunal in not granting the relief as prayed for is also liable to be interfered with and appropriate direction to be given for granting permission right from the year 1979.

(3.) WHEN we considered the rival submissions of the parties, we also perused the grounds raised by the petitioner in the O.A. before the Tribunal. According to the petitioner, when all the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him was dropped by the order dated 30.07.1987, the respondents are bound to grant the benefit of promotion with due seniority. WHEN the said grievance expressed by the petitioner in the O.A. is considered along with his grievance that his immediate junior got promoted in the year 1979, we find that the least the petitioner can expect is that his claim for promotion was bound to be considered right from the year 1979. We also find that the petitioner's claim for promotion from the year 1979 has been duly considered by the Review DPC.