LAWS(RAJ)-2000-9-50

UNION OF INDIA Vs. SHEKHAR CHAND JAIN

Decided On September 12, 2000
UNION OF INDIA Appellant
V/S
SHEKHAR CHAND JAIN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORIGINAL applicant Shekhar Chand Jain filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), stating that while he was functioning as Senior Transport Instructor in the Zonal Training Centre, Western Railway, Udaipur, two of his juniors were promoted on ad hoc basis in the grade of Rs. 2375-3500 w. e. f. 18. 4. 94. On a representation made by him, he was also given ad hoc promotion w. e. f. 17. 11. 94. Though he was senior, but he was superseded by his juniors in ad hoc promotion. He retired from service on 30. 11. 94. His grievance was that because of his late promotion in the scale of Rs. 2375- 3500, he was put to recurring financial loss in pensionary benefits as compared to his juniors. He made several representations and ultimately, his last representation dated 29. 9. 96 was rejected by letter dated 11. 3. 97 at Annex. A/6 to the original application and his further representation was also rejected on 28. 5. 97, Annex. A/1 to the original application. He, therefore, filed application before the CAT for redressal of his grievances.

(2.) THE respondents rejected the representations of the applicant on the ground that the benefit of promotion under the Next Below Rule (NBR) was applicable only in the case of regular promotion and not in ad hoc promotions.

(3.) BEFORE parting, we must state that when the juniors to the petitioner were promoted on 18. 4. 94, the petitioner made a representation to the Authorities and after considering his representation, he was also granted promotion w. e. f. 17. 11. 94. Thus, it was clear that the petitioner was wrongly superseded by his juniors on 18. 4. 94. Thus, in our considered opinion, the respondents committed an error in superseding the petitioner by giving promotions to his juniors on 18. 4. 94 and in that view of the matter, if the learned Tribunal has allowed the application filed by the respondent original applicant, then we will not interfere with such orders in our jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.