DEVENDRA SINGH NEGI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the instant Original Application filed under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, the applicant seeks following reliefs: -

(2.) AS per the O.A, the facts of the case, in brief, are that initially the applicant, who is physically handicapped, was appointed as Stenographer Grade -D at Aligarh vide appointment letter dated 21.08.1991. Later on he was transferred to Bareilly. In the gradation list published on 28.04.1994 the name of the applicant was shown at Sl. No. 108 whereas the name of respondent no. 4, who also belongs to physically handicapped category, was shown at Sl. No. 107 despite the fact that he was junior to the applicant by virtue of his joining the duty on 22.02.1993. For the above reasons, the respondent no. 4 was given promotion to the post of Steno Grade -II prior to the applicant as he was promoted as Steno Grade -II in the year 2001. The respondent no. 2 issued a letter dated 10.11.2000 regarding promotion to the post of Income Tax Inspector to all concerned asking 5 years character roll and vigilance clearance. In the said letter the name of the applicant was shown at Sl. No. 2 as physically handicapped candidate whereas the name of Gulshan Chaudhary and Gupta Nath Pandey, who were also physically handicapped candidate, was shown at Sl. No. 1 and 30 respectively. When a promotion list of 123 official to the post of Income Tax Inspector was issued on 26.06.2001, the name of the applicant was not included whereas the candidates at Sl. 1 and 30 were promoted. Aggrieved the applicant filed a representation to the respondent no. 2. Consequently the applicant was promoted as Income Tax Inspector vide letter dated 22.01.2002 with the benefit of seniority etc w.e.f. 29.11.2001. The applicant joined the post on 25.01.2002. Thereafter a gradation list as of March 2003 was published on 11.07.2003 in which the name of the applicant was shown at Sl. No. 307 whereas respondent no. 4 was shown at Sl. No. 301. On 15.01.2010 the respondents issued a letter stating therein that consequent to review DPC held for the year 2000 -01 to 2008 -09 in the grade of Income Tax Inspectors, the date of promotion of the applicant was changed from 22.01.2002 to 19.07.2006 for the review DPC recruitment year 2004 -05. The applicant filed a representation dated 05.04.2010.

(3.) UPON notice the respondents have filed Counter Affidavit. It is stated that Shri Gulshan Chaudhary joined as SG, Ordinary grade on 22.02.1993 whereas the applicant joined as SG Ordinary Grade on 23.08.2001 in the CCIT (CCA), U.P (W) Region, Kanpur and later on joined on 04.05.1993 CCIT (CCA) U.P (E) Region, Lucknow on inter charge transfer from CCIT (CCA) U.P (W) Region, Kanpur. It is averred in the Counter Affidavit that as per the Letter F. No. A -22020/76/89 Ad.VII dated 14.05.1990, in case of inter charge transfer, the individual will be placed at the bottom of the list of employees of the concerned cadre in the new charge. The seniority in the cadre in the new charge will start from the date that person reports for duty in the new charge. It has also been stated that as per para 'g' of the letter dated 14.05.1990, on transfer, the transferee will forfeit all claims for promotion / confirmation in the old charge. He will be eligible for promotion / confirmation only in the new charge in accordance with the seniority allotted to him on transfer. Therefore, the claim of the applicant that he is senior to Shri Gulshan Chaudhary is misleading. It is also stated that due to typographical mistake the date of commencement of service of the applicant as Income Tax Inspector was mentioned as 22.01.2001 instead of 22.01.2002 and the applicant cannot be permitted to take undue advantage of such inadvertent error. The applicant was earlier promoted to the post of Income Tax Inspector vide order dated 22.01.2002 against the vacancies for the year 2000 -01 being a physically handicapped candidate. The respondents have denied the contention of the applicant that his placement at Sl. No. 307 in the gradation list dated 11.07.2003 (Annexure -6 of O.A) became final as no objection was filed by him on the ground that the gradation list dated 11.07.2003 was not final.