JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.—Leave granted.

2. Union of India and its functionaries call in question correctness of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the present appellants and affirming the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (in short the CAT).

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows :

Respondent filed the Original Application claiming that he was entitled to pay and allowance from the date on which proforma promotion was given and not from the date of actual promotion. Appellants relied on circular dated 15/17 September, 1964 to contend that the claim was untenable.

4. According to CAT the only question which was to be decided was whether the respondent was entitled for his pay and allowance from August, 2001 on which date he was actually promoted as M.C.M. or with effect from 9.9.1997 from which date he has been given promotion on proforma basis. Appellants denied him the arrears with effect from 9.9.1997 on the ground that he has not worked on the promotional post during the said period and as such he was not entitled for the revised pay from that date. Reliance was placed on paragraph 228 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual (in short IREM) Volume I dealing with employees who have lost promotion on account of administrative error. It inter alia provides that in such cases the pay should be fixed on proforma basis and the enhanced pay was to be allowed from the date of actual promotion and no arrears on this account was to be paid for the past period as he did not actually perform duties and responsibilities of the higher post. The Tribunal relying on a decision of this Court in Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab and Others (1995 Supp. (3) SCC 471) held that the stand was unsustainable. Tribunals order was assailed before the High Court.

5. The High Court as noted above dismissed the writ petition relying on the judgment in Harbans Singhs case (supra).

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the view of the Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court does not reflect the correct position in law. Para 228 of IREM was pressed into service to contend that the Tribunal or the High Court in the instant case did not express any view on the legality of the provision. The CAT and the High Court merely relied on Harbans Singhs case (supra) without indicating as to how the factual scenario of that case has any application to the facts of the present case.

7. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent in spite of notice.

8. Para 228 of IREM reads as follows:

"228. Erroneous Promotions (I). Someties due to administrative errors, staff are over looked for promotion to higher grades could either be on account or wrong assignment of relative seniority of the eligible at the time of ordering promotion or some other reasons. Broadly, loss of seniority due to the administrative errors can be of two types:-

i.Where a person has not been promoted at all because of administrative error, and

ii.Where a person has been promoted but not on the date from which he would have been promoted but for the administrative error.

Each such case should be dealt with on its merits. The staff who have lost promotion on account of administrative error should on promotion be assigned correct seniority vis-a-vis their juniors already promoted, irrespective of the date of promotion. Pay in the higher grade on promotion may be fixed proforma at the proper time. The enhanced pay may be allowed from the date of actual promotion. No arrears on this account shall be payable as he did not actually shoulder the duties and responsibilities of the higher posts."

9. This court has occasion to deal with the same issue in Union of India and Ors. v. P.O. Abraham and Ors. in C.A. 8904 of 1994 decided on 13.8.1997. In that case the appeal was filed against the order of the Ernakulam Bench of CAT. Reliance was placed by the Union of Ind