IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Col Rajeev Negi – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 3539 of 2014
Decided On : 09-02-2023
Seniority Dispute - Armed Forces Tribunal - OM No. 21(4)/92/D (inspection), Letter No. 04477/MS Policy - Para 2 to OM No. 21(4)/92/D (inspection), Para 22 of letter No. 04477/MS Policy - Ajay Vikram Singh Committee Report - Army Act - Army Rules
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought correction of his seniority and promotion to the rank of Brigadier, claiming that his seniority was unfairly brought down and that he was placed below officers he deemed ineligible for promotion.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's seniority was correctly fixed based on his date of substantive Major as modified based on penalties/loss of seniority in the parent corps. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the order dated 01.03.2012.
Issues: Dispute over seniority and promotion in the Armed Forces, interpretation of relevant OMs and policies, applicability of the Ajay Vikram Singh Committee Report, and the authority governing seniority in the DGQA.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the DGQA is an independent body governed by its own OMs and rules, and the seniority of officers in DGQA is determined based on their date of substantive Major as modified based on penalties/loss of seniority in the parent corps.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, affirming the correctness of the petitioner's seniority and the authority of the DGQA to determine seniority based on its own rules and guidelines.
JUDGMENT
Suresh Kumar Kait, J.
1. By this petition, petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to correct his seniority vis-a-vis respondents No.5 & 6 in view of Para- 2 to OM No. 21(4)/92/D (inspection) dated 22.12.1993 and Para- 22 of letter No. 04477/MS Policy dated 21.12.2004 issued by MS Branch. In addition, a direction is also sought to respondents to consider and promote petitioner w.e.f. 01.05.2012 to the rank of Brigadier being the senior most officer of the rank of Colonel in Electronic Discipline, with all consequential benefits. Further, a direction to re-fix inter-se seniority of all officers permanently seconded in DGQA after 2004, especially of those 16 officers mentioned in letter dated 27.04.2011 is also sought.
2. Petitioner claims to have joined Indian Army in the year 1988, though he was assigned two years anti-dated seniority of 1986 Batch in the rank of Second Lieutenant at the time of his joining. Petitioner further claims to have cleared Part `D' Exam in 1999 and became Substantive Major and his seniority for promotion was fixed with 1988 Batch Officers. He was considered for promotion from Major to Lieutenant Colonel in the year 2004 but was not empanelled for promotion as his seniority for the purpose of promotion was brought down to 1989. He was Permanently Seconded to the organisation DGQA in the rank of Substantive Major in October, 2004. He was promoted to the rank of Colonel (Selection Grade) in May, 2007 as a 1989 Batch Officer.
3. Since petitioner's seniority was brought down from 1988 to 1989, being aggrieved he submitted a representation vide letter No. MSQA/RN.47965 dated 31.12.2008 to the Additional Director (O), which was turned down by the respondents vide letter dated 20.02.2009. Petitioner filed a Statutory Complaint on 20.04.2009 which according to him was not decided within the stipulated time of 180 days and the same was rejected by the competent authorities after almost three years. Petitioner further claims to have undergone personal hearings with DG, DGQA against his rejection of Statutory Complaint but to no avail.
4. Aggrieved against the inaction of respondents to correct his seniority, the petitioner approached the Armed Forces Tribunal vide OA No.370/2012 seeking a direction to the respondents to re-fix his seniority and also quashing of order dated 01.03.2012 of Department of Defence Production, Ministry of Defence, Government of India whereby his Statutory Complaint dated 20.04.2009 was rejected.
5. Learned Armed Forces Tribunal vide order dated 03.04.2013 disposed of the above-mentioned OA filed by the petitioner holding that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the grievance pertaining to the DGQA. Hence, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the relief(s) as mentioned hereinabove.
6. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that the petitioner is presently working as Director (E) in HQ DQAL (DGQA) in the rank of Colonel and though petitioner's seniority was of 1988 Batch in the rank of Major (Substantive), he was not considered by Selection Board No. 4 in the Army for promotion from Major to Lieutenant Colonel with his original batch of 1986 (in 2001) and next batch of 1987 (in 2002) but was subsequently considered by Selection Board No.4 for promotion from Major to Lieutenant Colonel in the year 2003 with the 1988 batch officers, but unfortunately he was not empanelled for promotion and his seniority for the purpose of promotion was brought down to 1989 as R1 Case.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner also submitted that to fix the inter-se seniority of the army officers seconded to DGQA, the Government of India had issued an OM No. 21(4)/92/D (inspection) dated 22.12.1993. The relevant Para of said OM read as under:
"It has been decided that the following criterion should be adopted for Permanent Secondment of the officer of the rank of Lt. Col. (including Lt. Col./TS) and M
The DGQA is an independent body with the authority to determine the seniority of officers based on its own rules and guidelines, separate from the Army Act and Army Rules.
The appointment date and seniority of a candidate should be based on their exam rank, and failure to communicate potential loss of seniority can be held against the authorities.
The court upheld that seniority must be determined based on recruitment batch and performance in training, emphasizing timely challenges to promotions are essential to maintain stability in service r....
The court upheld that administrative discretion in regulating seniority during organizational transitions is valid, nullifying claims if not pursued promptly by affected personnel.
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.