MOHD KAMIL Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, thereby quashing the order dated November 22, 2005 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') whereby Original Application No. 338-HR/2004 filed by the petitioner under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), was dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner was initially appointed as Cleaner in the Northern Railway on February 14, 1986. On October 14, 1988, he was deputed to work as Assistant Pump Engine Driver, Grade-III ('APED' for short). However, he was paid the salary of a Cleaner. On December 11, 1989, he was promoted as APED Grade-III on ad hoc basis. He continued on the ad hoc arrangement till October, 1992, when he was reverted to the post of Cleaner without affording him any opportunity of hearing. He challenged this action of the respondent-Department by way of filing Original Application No.1405/ HR/1992 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal stayed reversion of the petitioner to the post of Cleaner and, thus, he continued to work as APED Grade- III. In the meanwhile, petitioner submitted representation dated July 26, 1999 (Annexure A-8 to Annexure P-1) to the respondent- Department that he was working continuously since December 11, 1989, on the post of APED Grade-III, but had not been called for APED Grade-II Trade Test whereas employees junior to him had been posted after taking their APED Grade-II Trade Test and the name of the petitioner had been ignored from the seniority list. In the said representation, the petitioner prayed that he be called for the Trade Test of APED Grade-II being senior and be assigned seniority.

(3.) The Original Application No. 1405/HR/1992 was disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated January 17, 2001, by directing the respondent-Department to put the petitioner to the Trade Test for qualifying for the post of APED Grade-II, if not already done, after submission of his representation dated July 26, 1999 (Annexure A-8 to Annexure P-1). It was further directed that if the petitioner qualified the Trade Test and was found eligible and fit for promotion to the post of APED Grade-II, he be promoted to the said post with effect from the date his juniors were promoted and be granted all consequential benefits.