The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to grant relaxation based on the injustice caused by organizational and procedural delays, and the consideration of similarly situated persons in determining the respondent's entitlement.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. SISTANI, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by decision rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’) dated 25.04.2019 and the order passed in review application dated 19.08.2019.

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by a direction issued by the Tribunal to count nine months of ad-hoc service of the respondent to enable him to complete four years of regular service in the post of Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (‘APFC’), which in turn would enable the respondent to receive the Senior Time Scale.

3. Some facts required to be noticed and which led to the filing of the OA before the Tribunal are that the respondent joined the services of petitioner No. 1 as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) and was promoted as Section Officer in the year 1997. The qualifying service for promotion to the post of APFC from feeder posts of Enforcement Officer/Accounts Officer is seven years ; and from feeder posts of Section Officer and Private Secretary is five years.

4. According to the petitioners, as per the Recruitment Rules 1991, APFCs are appointed against two categories i.e. Departmental Quota (DP) and Direct Recruitment Quota (DR) in the ratio of 50:50. Admittedly, during the relevant period, the respondent was working as Section Officer. On 07.06.2007, the respondent was appointed to the post of APFC on temporary and ad-hoc basis against the direct recruitment quota vacancy.

5. It is also the stand of the petitioners that in the offer of appointment, it was clearly mentioned that the appointment was a stop-gap arrangement to meet administrative exigencies. The appointment on ad-hoc basis was initially for a period of one year from the date of assumption of charge or till the posts were filled-up on regular basis or until further orders, whichever was earlier.

6. The respondent thereafter made a representation to petitioner No. 1 on 01.09.2008 seeking regularization in the cadre of APFC. According to the petitioners, the respondent has made a misleading statement that he was promoted to the post of APFC on ad-hoc basis against the DP quota, whereas according to petitioner No. 1, it was on ad-hoc basis against the DR quota. A reply dated 30.09.2009 was issued to the respondent and it was made clear that as per the existing rule, the length of service rendered on ad-hoc basis is not taken into consideration for deciding seniority in the APFC cadre.

7. It was further clarified that as far as the DR quota of APFCs is concerned, APFCs are granted seniority w.e.f the date of joining the cadre ; and further that the decision would be taken only after the outcome of OA No. 26/MR/2009 pending before the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal. Admittedly, the respondent was promoted to the post of APFC on 24.08.2011 against his own vacancy under the seniority quota in the panel year 2009-10. As per the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held on 24.08.2011, it is the case of the petitioners that the respondent was regularized to the post of APFC w.e.f 24.08.2011 i.e. the date on which DPC was held.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that prior to 24.08.2011, DPC was held on 05.01.2004 to consider officials for regular promotion to the post of APFC. The DPC considered promotion from the combined seniority list of EO/AAO/Superintendent as on 03.03.1990 and almost all officers were considered. Two OAs were filed and an order to convene review DPC was passed. This also led to the delay in holding of the DPC. In this case, the respondent superannuated on 30.11.2014 from the services of EPFO and retired as APFC. He could not be promoted to the post of RPFC (Grade-II) as he had not completed four years of regular service in the cadre of APFC. He was appointed on ad-hoc basis on 07.06.2007 and regularized on 24.08.2011.

9. Post retirement, on 06.02.2015, a representation was made by the respondent claiming various reliefs. He also mentioned in his represe