A minor penalty of censure can validly impede an employee's promotion eligibility, and failure to challenge the legality of the penalty undermines claims for promotion.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Kumar J

1. This intra-Court appeal is directed against an order and judgment dated 04.05.2022 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court [“the Writ Court”] in SWP No. 862/2009 titled "V.P.Saini vs Chairman, Airport Authority of India and others‟ whereby the Writ Court has allowed the petition of the writ petitioner ["the respondent‟] and by a writ of certiorari quashed the proceedings initiated by the appellants which resulted into penalty of “censure” dated 31.11.2001 against the respondent. The appellants have also been directed by the Writ Court to grant the benefit of next higher scale of DGM (ATC) to the respondent w.e.f 01.10.1999 along with consequential benefits.

2. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged by Mr. Vishal Sharma learned DSGI appearing for the appellants, we deem it appropriate to set out few facts germane to the disposal of this appeal.

3. In the year 1983, the respondent was temporarily promoted as Aerodrome Officer vide DGCA letter No. 32013/12/83 dated 29.11.1983. However, his services as Aerodrome Officer were regularized w.e.f 02.10.1989 by the National Airport Authority of India vide order dated 26.02.1990. In the year 1991, a draft seniority list of Aerodrome Officers was issued wherein the respondent was shown at S.No. 122 while placing the direct recruits (Aerodrome Officers) appointed in March 1986 and February 1987 over and above the respondent and other Departmental candidates. The said seniority list became subject matter of challenge in SWP No. 532/1992. The said writ petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 26.08.1993 directing the appellants herein to dispose of the representation of the respondent in accordance with the rules. The appellants vide order dated 31.08.1992 disposed of the representation by rejecting the claim of the respondent. Consequently, the respondent continued to figure at S.No. 122 in the draft seniority list which was later on finalized.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of his representation, the respondent filed SWP No. 835/1992 which was disposed by a Single Bench of this Court on 21.04.1995. The final seniority list impugned therein was quashed and the respondent was directed to be placed over and above the private respondents in the said writ petition from S.No. 4 to 43. The National Airport Authority of India and the Union of India filed LPA No. 175/1995 challenging the judgment of the Single Bench dated 21.04.1995. The LPA was dismissed by the Division Bench vide order dated 07.9.1995. An SLP filed against the order of the Division Bench too came to be dismissed thereby confirming the judgment of the Writ Court as upheld by the Division Bench. This happened before the Supreme Court on 17.12.2002.

5. In the meanwhile, the respondent superannuated from service on 31.10.2001. Consequent upon dismissal of the SLP by the Supreme Court, the judgment of the Writ Court was complied with and the respondent was promoted as Sr. Aerodrome Officer w.e.f 12.06.1995, but, was not given the promotion on the basis of his seniority which was due to him w.e.f 23.09.1993 when his juniors were promoted. Later on, the respondent was granted the benefit of first promotion w.e.f 23.09.1993 as Sr. Aerodrome Officer. The immediate junior to the respondents Mr. V.K.Dutta was given a further promotion as DGM w.e.f 01.10.1999, but the said promotion was denied to the respondent.

6. On attaining the superannuation, the respondent, who was facing two Departmental enquiries, was not released the due pensionary benefits. The respondent again came up before this Court by way of SWP No. 893/2005 and sought, inter alia, a direction to the appellants herein to grant him the benefit of next higher scale of DGM w.e.f 01.10.1999 and the consequential benefits including arrears of emoluments and post retiral benefits. The writ petition was disposed by a Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.12.2008 by directing the appellants herein to examine the claim