DILBAGH SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner impugns the order dated 01.06.2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh to the extent it holds that the petitioner if found fit for promotion to the post of Superintendent [Operations] w.e.f. 27.02.1992, shall be given such promotion and fixed in the pay scale on notional basis. The petitioner's claim is that the Tribunal ought to have directed consideration of his promotion claim with all consequential benefits. The facts may be noticed briefly. The petitioner joined the respondent Department as a Senior Technical Assistant on 29.12.1988, whereas private respondents No. 4 and 5 joined the Department as Radio Operators on 10.12.1974 and 14.03.1975 respectively. They were then promoted as Supervisors and then as Communication Assistants in November, 1989 and July, 1990 respectively. On the setting up of Central Board of Excise and Custom in the year 1991, 55 Group "B" posts of Superintendent [Operations] were sanctioned. While respondents No. 4 and 5 were promoted as Superintendent [Operations], the petitioner was ignored. Being aggrieved, he approached the Tribunal who held that [i] respondents No. 4 and 5 were in the feeder cadre of the post which the petitioner was holding, hence were lower in rank and status; [ii] they were promoted on the basis of draft Rules having no statutory force; and [iii] there were statutory Service Rules which ought to have been followed.

(2.) SINCE the respondent -Authorities meanwhile passed an order dated 03.04.2000 promoting the petitioner as Superintendent [Group 'B'] that the Tribunal vide its impugned order dated 01.06.2000 disposed of his Original Application with a direction to consider his claim retrospectively w.e.f. 27.02.1992 when respondents No. 4 and 5 were promoted. The Tribunal, however, directed that in the event of acceptance of the petitioner's claim, he shall be granted the benefits notionally only.

(3.) IT is urged by the petitioner -in -person that despite the above reproduced findings returned by Tribunal or this Court, respondents No. 4 and 5 were allowed to hold the post of Superintendent [Group 'B'] till they retired on superannuation. In this manner, the persons of lower rank and status were allowed to hold and enjoy the perks of a higher post w.e.f. 27.02.1992, i.e., the date when they were illegally promoted, the petitioner was denied such benefits for no fault on his part.