IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, JJ.
S.NARAYANASWAMY - Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 4699/2012
Decided on : 19.09.2012
Notional Promotion - Government Employees - The court directed notional promotion for retired government employees if the Departmental Promotion Committee considers them fit for promotion after their retirement, following the decision in P.G. George vs. Union of India & Ors. The court held that the petitioner should be granted notional promotion and pensionary benefits in line with the directions given in P.G. George's case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking parity with the case of P.G. George vs. Union of India & Ors. The petitioner had sought notional promotion retrospectively.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's case was not different from that of P.G. George and directed notional promotion and pensionary benefits for the petitioner in line with the directions given in P.G. George's case.
Issues: The main issue was whether retired government employees would be eligible for notional promotion retrospectively if the Departmental Promotion Committee considers them fit for promotion after their retirement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the previous decision in P.G. George's case, where notional promotion was allowed for retired employees. The court held that the petitioner should be granted notional promotion and pensionary benefits in line with the directions given in P.G. George's case.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and directed that the petitioner's pay be fixed notionally, granted notional increments, if any, due till retirement, and granted pensionary benefits in line with the directions given in P.G. George's case.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J :
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 25.04.2011 and 30.05.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No.3820/2010 and R.A. No.158/2011 respectively.
2. Without going into the details of the matter we may straightaway point out that the petitioner had sought parity with the case of P.G. George vs. Union of India & Ors. (O.A. No.1409/2009) decided on 22.04.2010 by a coordinate bench of the Tribunal. Along with the said case of P.G. George (supra) seven other OAs of similarly placed individuals had also been decided by the said order dated 22.04.2010. The only question that was raised in those matters was as under:
“2. The question before us for consideration is whether the retired employees of the Government would be eligible for notional promotion retrospectively, if the meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee, held after their retirement, considers them fit for promotion and persons junior to them in service are promoted retrospectively from the dates, when such retired employees were in service.”
3. After considering the merits of the matter, the Tribunal in P.G. George’s case allowed all the said OAs and directed as under:-
“In the result, the OAs are allowed. The Respondents are directed to grant notional promotion to the Applicants from the date their immediate juniors were promoted in various Select Lists of the years 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006. The promotion would be notional but it would count towards increments and consequently in recalculation of post-retirement dues. The Respondents would recalculate the dues and make these over to the Applicants as expeditiously as possible but not later than 15.06.2010. There will be no order as to costs.”
4. It is also an admitted case that the respondent herein had taken the matter further and filed a writ petition in respect of the decision in P.G. George’s case. That writ petition was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this court on 23.07.2010. Subsequent thereto the orders passed by the Tribunal in P.G. George’s case were implemented by virtue of OM dated 03.08.2010. Similar OMs of the same date were issued in the matter connected with P.G. George (supra).
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and it appears to us that the case of the petitioner is no different from the case of P.G. George (supra) which was dealt with by the Tribunal by virtue of the order dated 22.04.2010. The learned counsel for the respondent has been unable to distinguish the case of the petitioner from that of P.G. George (supra). Consequently, the observations of the Tribunal to the contrary cannot be accepted. According to us the Tribunal ought to have followed the decision of a co-ordinate bench and ought to have allowed the OA filed by the petitioner inasmuch as the case of the petitioner is not any different from that of P.G. George (supra). The said OM dated 03.08.2010 in P.G. George’s case contains the following directions with regard to implementation:-
“3. The Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas are therefore hereby requested to implement the order of the CAT in respect of Shri P.G. George w.e.f. 1st July of 2007 by fixing of his pay notionally and granting notional increments if any due till his retirement and also granting pensionary benefits immediately under intimation to this Department ……..”
6. Consequently, it is directed that the petitioner’s pay be fixed notionally and he be granted notional increments, if any, due till his retirement and he be also granted pensionary benefits in accord with the directions given in P.G. George’s case. We make it clear that the petitioner would be notionally promoted to the post of Deputy Secretary w.e.f. 01.07.2005. The writ petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.