PRASAD P Vs. UNION OF INDIA; BORDER ROADS DEVELOPMENT BOARD; DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING,; DIRECTOR GENERAL; COMMANDER; OFFICER COMMANDING; KRIPAL SINGH; BIJU R ; VARGHESE NL; RAMESH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (i). The case of the Petitioner in the Writ Petition is that he is employed in the regular establishment as a Mason under the GREF having been recruited directed to that post on 02-03-1995. A Master Seniority List (MSL) was maintained by the employer during the year 2001 in respect of all Group 'D' employees (presently Group 'C') consisting of Carpenters, Masons, etc., for the purpose of promotion to the next higher post of Overseer on the basis of seniority and the result of trade test. As per the MSL of the year 2001, the Respondents No.7 to 12 were junior to the Petitioner. Shri Prasad P. vs. Union of India and Others

(2.) (i). In their joint counter-affidavit, the Respondents have not disputed that the dispatch of the T. T. Sheet of the Petitioner had been delayed on account of which the Record Office at Pune did not include the name of the Petitioner in the recommendations for promotion to the DPC. The recommendations made in the year 2008 which Shri Prasad P. vs. Union of India and Others included the name as the Petitioner was rejected by the HQ DGBR as proposal for merger of some trades was being considered by the Cadre Review Committee. Similarly, DPC that was conducted in the year 2009 also was not approved as the proposal for the merger of certain trades/posts was given effect to in the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission. It is thus stated that the Petitioner was not considered for promotion to the post of Overseer during the DPC 2001 due to non-receipt of T. T. Sheet by the GREF records in time and thereafter, his name was considered twice in DPC 2008 and 2009 for promotion to Overseer but, were not approved by HQ DGBR for the reasons stated earlier.

(3.) Before dealing with the contentions raised in the case, it would be relevant to note that the Writ Petition was amended by order dated 30-05-2014 to implead Respondents No.7 to 12 who were juniors in Shri Prasad P. vs. Union of India and Others service to the Petitioner thereby overcoming the objection of non-joinder of necessary parties. Following the amendment notices were duly served upon the newly impleaded Respondents, as would be evident from the affidavit of service dated 18-09-2014 affirmed by Major Rohan Lewis, Officer Commanding, 87 RCC, COY, GREF, the Respondent No.6. Despite this, Respondents No.7 to 12 chose not to appear and contest the case.