RAJBIR PARKASH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned orders dated 23.07.2014 (Annexure P-1) and 26.09.2014 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal whereby the original application as well as review application of the petitioner claiming promotion at par with his juniors have been declined.

(2.) Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Gramin Dak Sewak (GDS) on 27.10.1983. Grievance of the petitioner was that despite putting more 28 years of service, he was not given any promotion whereas the private respondents No.4 to 41 were promoted as Group-D outrightly ignoring the claim of the petitioner. On coming to his knowledge, he made representations but to no effect. The petitioner filed original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal which was disposed of vide order dated 6.10.2009 on the ground that the petitioner had failed to substantiate his case as he was not having the gradation list and further granted the liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority under RTI Act, if so desired. Resultantly, he filed appeal before the concerned authority which provided the information and it revealed that two persons namely Virender Kumar GDS and Mahender Kumar GDS who were much junior to the petitioner have been promoted to post of Group-D whereas the claim of the petitioner was declined. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Original Application before the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal dismissed the same arbitrarily and without application of mind. That order was challenged before this Court by filing CWP No.4235 of 2012 and vide order dated 20.03.2012, writ petition as well as Original Application was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh Original Application with more information and clear evidence. The petitioner again approached Central Administrative Tribunal through review application but the same was also declined. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) It is pertinent to mention here that at the time of issuing notice of motion, following order was passed by this Court: