S. Ravindra Bhat:

1. The petitioner, the Government of NCT of Delhi (hereafter called "GNCTD") in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questions an order dated 07.08.2013 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereafter ‘the Tribunal’), in O.A. No. 1459/2012 which directed it to consider the respondents for promotion from the dates on which their immediate juniors were promoted, and also to grant them arrears of pay and consequential benefits alongwith it.

2. The facts surrounding the present writ are that the Govt. of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD), through Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, (hereafter “DSSSB”) in 2002 issued an advertisement for appointment to various posts of Grade II DASS (Delhi Administrative Subordinate Service). Accordingly, respondents’ no. 1&4, 2&3 and 5 applied under the Sports, Other Backward Classes (OBC) and Ex-Serviceman categories respectively. The written test for the purpose of recruitment was held on 17.11.2002. The result of the test was declared in stages. On 10.01.2003 the result was declared for three categories, namely; general, physically handicapped and ex-servicemen categories. The second set of results was declared on 22.03.2004 in respect of the scheduled caste(SC) and Other Backward Class (OBC)-subject to outcome of a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA No. 625/2002) filed by the Govt. of Delhi against the decision in C.W.P. No. 5061/2001 Kunwar Pal &Ors. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi. That appeal was subsequently dismissed by order dated 13.05.2005. The third set of results was declared on 02.09.2005 in respect of SC & ST candidates from outside the state. The last set of results was declared on 10.12.2007 after directions of this Court (in W.P. (C)No. 6498 of 2007), in the case of the applicants in respect of the sports category.

3. Despite declaration of the result, due to the non-issuance of appointment letters to the applicants, two applications were filed before the Tribunal, namely, Umesh Gahlot & Ors. v. GNCTD (O.A. No. 1872/2008) and Ved Prakash & Ors. v. GNCTD (O.A. No. 1925/2008). These applications were disposed of by common order dated 07.01.2009 with a direction to the GNCTD to issue appointment letter to the applicants/ respondents and to assign their seniority on the basis of their merit position in the written test. This judgment was challenged by the GNCTD by W.P. Nos. 8637 & 8638 of 2009 which were disposed of with the direction to the petitioner to issue appointment letters as per the satisfaction of the Secretary (Services). The Secretary further directed by Order 126 (No. F.3/72/2000/SII/2924) dated 22.05.2009 that the appointment orders be issued to the applicants at the earliest.

4. The respondents were finally appointed with effect from 12.08.2009. Their seniority was fixed by an order No. F.55/37/2012/SI/ 414 dated 09.10.2012, in consultation with the advice of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Central Government. On 07.02.2011, by Order No. 47 (No. F.55/17/2009/SI/Part-III/), GNCTD promoted certain juniors of the respondents to Grade-I DASS as they had fulfilled the requirement of Recruitment Rules and qualifying Period of Service. The respondents herein accordingly filed O.A. No. 1459/2012. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, directed the GNCTD to consider the respondents for promotion to Grade I of DASS from the dates on which their immediate juniors were promoted. The Tribunal also held that the respondent/applicants were entitled to all consequential benefits and arrears of pay.

5. GNCTD is aggrieved with the impugned order which, in relevant part, is as follows:

“11. We have considered the arguments of both sides. It is not disputed that the applicants who appeared in the 2002 examination were appointed many years after their other batch-mates had been appointed. The delay occurred only on the part of the respondents for which the applicants are not to be blamed. Hence to us it appears that denying them further promotion now on the