Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 526
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, DEEPA SHARMA, JJ.
V.R.K. Nair – Petitioner
Versus
UOI And Others – Respondents
W.P. (C) 3288 of 2003
Decided On : 06-04-2018
For the Petitioner:Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. R.V. Sinha and Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocates
The court emphasized the limited scope of its powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and the inapplicability of the relief sought by the petitioner.
Headnote:
CAT Order Quashed - Proforma Promotion - NBR - FR 22, Swamy’s Compilation of FRs and SRs 13th Edition 1997 - The court discussed the application of FR 22 and the interpretation of NBR in the context of the petitioner's claim for proforma promotion and pay fixation. The court found that the petitioner was not prevented from officiating in the higher grade and therefore, the relief prayed for was not permissible. The court also emphasized the limited scope of its powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissing his application for proforma promotion or pay fixation. The petitioner claimed that he was prevented from officiating in a higher grade due to non-receipt of a promotion order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not prevented from officiating in the higher grade and therefore, the relief prayed for was not permissible. The court also emphasized the limited scope of its powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's claim for proforma promotion and pay fixation, the application of FR 22, and the interpretation of NBR.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the relief prayed for by the petitioner was not permissible as he was not prevented from officiating in the higher grade. The court also emphasized the limited scope of its powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.
1. The present petition seeks quashing of order dated 30.01.2002 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘CAT’) in OA No. 277/2001, whereby, the original application filed by the petitioner, seeking proforma promotion under ‘NBR’ w.e.f. 17.08.1992 (i.e. the date of promotion of his junior S.P. Jindal as EAD/AE), or alternatively to fix his basic pay in the grade of EAD/AE in the scale of Rs.6,500-10,500/-, at par with his juniors who were promoted along with him; came to be dismissed.
2. The facts, as are necessary for the adjudication of the present petition, are briefly adumbrated as follows:-
(i) On 18.01.1972, the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer in the Central Water Commission-Respondent No.2.
(ii) On 31.07.1992, the petitioner who was working as Junior Engineer (JE) in Bhutan, was promoted and posted as EAD/AE under Chief Engineer, North Eastern Region, Shillong. However, pursuant thereto the petitioner did not join as EAD/AE in Shillong.
(iii) Subsequently, vide order dated 04.09.1992, the petitioner was posted to N.E. Investigation Division-II, under N.E. Investigation Circle, Shillong. However, the petitioner of his own volition did not join thereat as well, because meanwhile he was selected for deputation under National Water Development Agency (for short ‘N.W.D.A.’) at Trivandrum i.e. his home town, and his services were placed thereunder vide office order dated 31.07.1992.
(iv) Pursuant thereto, the petitioner handed over charge to proceed to Trivandrum on 05.09.1992, in compliance of an order dated 01.09.1982 relieving him from his earlier duties.
(v) It is the case of the petitioner that he made repeated representations to respondent No.2, resting with a representation dated 06.10.1999, which also did not yield the desired result. Eventually, upon rejection of his said representation dated 06.10.1999 vide memo dated 03.02.2000, the petitioner assailed the latter memo by instituting the aforesaid O.A. No.277/2001. The learned CAT by way of the impugned order observed as follows:-
“Applicant seeks proforma promotion under NBR w.e.f. 17.8.92 i.e. that date of promotion of his junior Shri S.P. Jindal, EAD/AE, or alternatively to fix his basic pay in the grade of EAD/AE in the scale of Rs. 6500-10500 at par with his juniors who were promoted along with him.
2. Heard both sides.
3. By order dated 31.7.92 (Annexure III) applicant who was working as J.E. in Bhutan was promoted and posted EAD/AE under Chief Engineer, North Eastern Region, Shillong. Respondents’ letter dated 17.11.93 (Annexure R-III) reveals that aforesaid order dated 31.7.92 was passed on to applicant on 25.8.92 on proper receipt, but applicant himself avers in para 1(iii) of his O.A. that he did not join as EAD/AE in Shillong pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 31.7.92. Subsequently he was further posted to N.E. Investigation Division II under N.E. Investigation Circle, Shillong vide order dated 4.9.92. Meanwhile he had earlier applied for the post of A.E. in N.W.D.A. Trivandrum and consequent to his selection, orders for relieving him from CWC issued on 31.7.92 upon which he relinquished charge on 5.9.92 and proceeded on deputation to Trivandrum. Meanwhile Shri S.P. Jindal, whose name featured below applicant’s name in order dated 31.7.92 and was also promoted and posted by the same order in C.E., N.E. Region, Shillong, presumably joined his post pursuant to that order soon after.
5. Government of India order No.29 below FR 22 in Swamy’s Compilation of FRs and SRs 13th Edition 1997 lays down that N.B.R. is attracted where an officer in a post (whether within the cadre of his service or not) is prevented from officiating in his turn in a post in the higher scale. In the present O.A. there is no averment by applicant that he was prevented from joining as EAD/A.E. at Shillong. Indeed applicant did not join at Shillong of his own volition because meantime he had been selected for dep
