(1.) Three applicants have joined together in filing the present OA and are seeking the following relief (s) under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: - (A) Direct the Respondents to hold the Assessment Board to assess the Applicants for the grade of Joint Director, under the Flexible Complementing Scheme (of in -situ promotion), at the earliest, (B) Assess the Applicants for the grade of Joint Director -even if they superannuate; (C) Pass such other and further order or orders direction or directions as this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances to meet the ends of justice.
(2.) Brief factual matrix of the case would disclose that the applicants were initially appointed as Research Officer (Engineering) in the office of Central Soil and Material Research Station (CSMRS) and they joined in February/June 1985. The next higher post being Senior Research Officer and the relevant Rules governing the promotion to the said post is CSMRS (Group -A) Recruitment Rules, 1983 and the post under the said Rules having been treated as Scientific and Technological post, the Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS) in -situ promotion in Scientific Department and Organisations issued by the Respondent Department dated 22.11.1983 would be applicable to the applicants for their future promotion. Though they were granted promotion to the Senior Research Officer (SRO) w.e.f. 10.01.1994 they agitated against the said order before this Tribunal in OA No.1715/1995 and OA No.1716/1995. The OA No.1715/1995 was decided on 14.10.1999 directing the respondents to extend the benefits of the promotion to the SRO Grade w.e.f. the date of their eligibility i.e. June, 1990. Similar judgment was passed in case of applicants in OA No.1716/1995 vide order dated 18.01.2000. Against the said judgments of the Tribunal, respondents moved the Honble High Court of Delhi in Civil Writ Petition No.2456/2000 and 12484/2000 which were dismissed at the admission stage vide orders dated 19.07.2000. Respondent -Union of India moved Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.19111 -12/2000 in the Honble Supreme Court of India which was decided on 30.07.2001, wherein, the prayer for stay was dismissed vide order dated 1.02.2002. As the stay was refused by the Honble Supreme Court, the applicants moved Contempt Petition in the Tribunal (CP No.681/2001) praying for a direction to the respondents to implement the directions of the Tribunal. The orders in the CP were passed on March 18, 2002. Though the applicants were promoted in April, 2002 to the grade of Senior Research Officer but were not granted arrears of pay. Hence, applicants filed Contempt Petition in the Tribunal again. In the meantime, pursuant to the directions of the Tribunal, the respondent -Union of India vide order dated 15.04.2002 granted the applicants promotion to the grade of Senior Research Officer w.e.f. the date of eligibility (February/June 1990) and were granted arrears of pay and allowances. The next higher post for the applicants was Chief Research Officer (CRO). The applicants were promoted to the post of CRO w.e.f. 11.10.2006. However, being aggrieved by the said order, they approached the Tribunal in OA No.1810/2007 which was decided on 9.07.2009 directing the respondents to promote them w.e.f. the date they became eligible for promotion to the post of CRO in 1995 under the FCS by in -situ promotion. The respondents moved MA No.1930/2009 in the said OA seeking extension of time to implement the decision and the said MA was dismissed by the Tribunal. A Contempt Petition was filed by the applicants (CP No.533/2009) and respondents took time to promote the applicants to the grade of CRO w.e.f. February/June 1995 vide the order dated 17.02.2010. After antedating the promotion of the applicant to the grade of CRO they became senior to Dr. Rajbal Singh and Mr. S. K. Babbar who were working as CROs. It is the case of the applicants that Dr. Rajbal and Shri Babbar were promoted under FCS in -situ promotion to the grade of Joint Director w.e.f. 12.02.2007 and the said promotion stipulated that the promotion of officers would be subject to the final outcome of the Civil Appeal No.4973 -74/2001 pending in the Honble Supreme Court. The said Civil Appeal was decided in favour of the applicants vide order dated 14.11.2007. Despite repeated reminders by the applicants to hold the assessment for the grade of Joint Director as they have completed required eligibility criteria of five years besides they have put in more than 15 years of service in the Group -A and their juniors have already been promoted to the grade of Joint Director, the respondents did not act on their representations and the 1st and 2nd applicants retired in June and December, 2010 respectively. It is appropriate at present to note that both the applicants along with third applicant challenged inaction of the respondents in promoting them to the grade of Joint Director under FCS, filed the present OA on 1.06.2010 just before the retirement of one of the applicants.
(3.) Shri Sachin Chauhan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants, would contend that non promotion of the applicants to the grade of Joint Director when their juniors have been promoted in -situ under FCS to the said grade, being wholly illegal, would violate Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. He submits that as against the required period of five years eligibility in the grade of CRO, the applicants have put in more than 15 years of service in the Group -A and considering the antedating of their promotion to February/June 1995, they would be deemed to have completed 5 years with grade of CRO. Therefore, not taking their assessment for the grade of Joint Director was invidious discrimination. He submits that FCS in -situ promotion provides consideration of the eligible candidates in the grade of CRO to be considered ever half year for promotion and having not done so for the applicants they have been denied their due promotion. Thus, he urges that the respondents should be directed suitably.