TARLOK SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certio rari quashing the order dated 6.2.2001 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Central Adminis trative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in O.A. 727/CH/1992 in as much as and to the extent that it holds the petitioner to be ineligible for the grant of sen ior scale. The petitioner also seeks the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus di recting the respondents to fix his pay in the Senior Scale equal to his junior S.S. Kapoor w.e.f. March, 1983 with all consequential benefits, such as fixation of pay, payment of arrears, re-fixation of pension and gratuity along with interest at the rate of 18% per an num.

(2.) Brief facts as pleaded are that the petitioner joined as Cleaner in the Indian Rail ways on 4.10.1947. He earned promotion in due course on various posts. His last pro motion was as Senior Loco Inspector w.e.f. 2.5.1962. In April, 1979 whilst working as such, he was sent on deputation to Nigeria for establishment and running a railways for a period of three years. On his return in April, 1982, he was posted as Senior Loco In spector at Diesel Loco Shed, Ludhiana. He joined on 13.5.1982. Whilst the petitioner was on deputation, about 31 persons junior to him had been promoted as Assistant Me chanical Engineer in the Class II service, on regular basis with effect from March, 1980. Some other persons junior to the petitioner were also promoted as Assistant Mechanical Engineer on adhoc basis. The claim of the petitioner for promotion was not considered at the time when persons junior to him were promoted. The petitioner thereafter submit ted a number of representations for the necessary relief. He was granted promotion on adhoc basis pending selection by order dated 13.7.1984 (Annexure R-2 to the written statement). The petitioner took the charge of AME Diesel (the promotional post) on 15.8.1984. Subsequently, he cleared the selection of AME in group (B) services and was placed on the penal on 12.10.1984. His name was also included in the panel of 1980 with effect from the date his juniors were empanelled by order dated 16.6.1993. Before the petitioner could render non-fortuitous service of three years in Group (B), he retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.1985. At that time, he had rendered service as AME in Group (B) only w.e.f. 15.8.1984 to 31.12.1985. According to the re spondents, for the condition of eligibility for grant of senior scale in Group (B), the minimum of 3 years on non-fortuitous service is required. The minimum years of non fortuitous service was not fulfilled by the petitioner. Therefore, by order dated 13.3.1992, the Railway Board declined to grant the senior scale to the petitioner. The re spondents have also stated that at the time when his juniors were considered for promo tion, he was also invited to appear for the interview. He could not appear as he was on deputation to Nigeria. Thus, 31 candidates who were empanelled for promotion on 31.12.1980, included persons junior to the petitioner. Para 206.1 of the Indian Rail ways 's Establishment Manual deals with consideration for promotion of the cases of employees on deputation. We may reproduce the provisions at this stage for ready refer ence:-

(3.) It was pleaded that S.S. Kapoor was promoted and appointed as Assistant Me chanical Engineer Class II in March, 1980. He being junior to the petitioner would enti tle the petitioner to proforma promotion from the same date. The petitioner filed OA in the Tribunal claiming proforma promotion and the grant of selection grade. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, it was stated that the claim of the ap plicant for promotion fixation of pay in Group (B) with respect to his junior is under consideration. The Tribunal, therefore, issued a direction to the respondents to decide the matter as early as possible and preferably within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of the order. The claim of the applicant for grant of Senior Scale has been rejected, on the basis of the instructions dated 27.2.1978. It has been held that since the petitioner had been on deputation and was placed in the Panel in 1984, he did not have the occasion of rendering three years non-fortuitous service in Class II. Even though his name had been "interpolated in the panel of 1980 selection, but that will not make him eligible for the selection grade". It is this part of the order of the Tribunal that the petitioner has challenged in the present writ petition.