T.R. MEHTA Vs. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with prayer that the letter dated March 2, 1989 issued by the Principal Medical Officer, Chandigarh rejecting his prayer for retrospective promotion on the post of Assistant and orders dated September 1, 1997 and November 4, 1997, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for short, 'the Tribunal'), dismissing O.A. No. 948 -CH -90 and R. A. No. 86 of 1997 filed by him may be declared illegal and quashed. He has also prayed for issue of a mandamus to the official respondents to promote him as Assistant with effect from January, 1977.

(2.) THE facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are that after being discharged from military service on 22.6.1971, the petitioner was appointed as Clerk -cum -Typist in the services of Union Territory, Chandigarh. After joining the service, he made representations for counting of military service in accordance with the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 for grant of various service benefits. By an order dated 25.5. ] 987, he was given the benefit of military service from April 29, 1963 to January 10, 1968 for the purpose of deemed appointment, seniority and pay fixation. Accordingly, his appointment on the post or Clerk -cum -Typist was ante -dated and he was deemed to have been appointed with effect from July 29, 1967. Thereafter, he was promoted as Assistant. However, his prayer for being promoted on that post from January, 1977 i.e. the date on which his alleged junior Shri D.P. Gupta had been promoted was rejected.

(3.) IN the written statement filed on behalf of the official respondents before the Tribunal, it was averred that the application filed by the petitioner was barred by limitation. They also contested the petitioner's claim on merits on the ground that he and Shri D.P. Gupta were in different cadres and, therefore, the promotion accorded to the latter in January 1977 cannot entitle him to claim retrospective promotion on the post of Assistant.