Point of Law: A court of law cannot be weaponized to seek benefit of a wrong.

JUDGMENT :

[Satish Chandra Sharma, J.]

1. This writ petition stems from the order dated 26.09.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (Hereinafter referred as “the Tribunal”) in O.A. 2115/2003 whereby the Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's challenge to the respondent's letter dated 09/14.07.2003. By way of the said letter, the respondents rejected the petitioner’s request for promotion to Fitter Grade-II and subsequently to Fitter Grade-I by referring to the seniority list dated 06.10.1990 whereby the petitioner was placed at a lower place in the seniority list as a consequence of his transfer on “own request'' basis. Before adverting to the reasoning of the Tribunal in the impugned order, we shall set out the facts of the case in brief.

2. The petitioner joined the railways as Khallasi/diesel cleaner on 09.07.1981 and was promoted as Sr. Khallasi/ Khallasi Helper on 01.01.1988 as a result of upgradation of the post. Meanwhile, on 30.04.1986, the respondents initiated a proposal to install a new electric loco shed at Tughlakabad, Kota Division of the Western Railway. The petitioner requested for transfer to the newly installed loco shed on personal grounds i.e. on own request basis. The request was accepted and the petitioner was posted at the new establishment in a lower grade i.e. Khallasi. The petitioner joined the new establishment on 19.01.1989.

3. Subsequently, the respondents invited applications from employees serving in the railways for transfer to the newly installed loco shed on administrative grounds. On 17.10.1989, the applicant also requested for consideration of his “on request” transfer as a transfer on administrative grounds. The said request received the recommendation of Senior DEE on 17.10.1989. However, no decision was taken in this regard. Thereafter, the applicant sought promotion as Senior Khallasi, the grade at which he was serving prior to his transfer. The applicant was subjected to a trade test for the post of Fitter Grade-III, along with other employees. Upon being declared successful in the trade test on 13.02.1990, the applicant was placed at Sr. No. 25 in the list of selected candidates for the post of Fitter Grade-III and was promoted as such on 03.03.1990.

4. Meanwhile, the respondents issued a provisional seniority list on 09.02.1990 wherein the petitioner was placed at Sr. No.25. Various representations were invited against the provisional seniority and time was given to the employees to submit the same. Thereafter, the corrected seniority list was finalized and vide office order dated 13.07.1991, the petitioner's seniority was revised and he was found to be ineligible for promotion to the post of Fitter Grade-III as per the corrected seniority list. Consequently, the petitioner was reverted to the original post of Khallasi by Sr. DEE/TKD vide office order dated 20/23.07.1991. The reversion order was challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal in O.A. 1723/1991. The respondents decided to cancel the reversion order and passed an order dated 21.08.1991, thereby allowing the petitioner to continue working as Fitter Grade-III. Thereafter, the petitioner took the trade test for promotion as Fitter Grade-II, however, he was not promoted by the respondents. The Tribunal disposed of O.A.1723/1991 on 01.10.1996 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to Fitter Grade-II, if eligible as per the extant rules and regulations of the respondents. Upon considering the case of the petitioner, in light of the above direction, the respondents passed two orders dated 23.12.1996 and 04.02.1998 whereby the petitioner’s request for promotion to Fitter Grade-II was rejected for the reason that the petitioner was promoted to Fitter Grade-III on the basis of a false declaration and was prevented from being reverted to the post of Khallasi due to the stay of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1723/1991.

5. The above decisions of the respondents c