1

Item No.4

OA No.800/2015

Central Administrative Tribunal

Principal Bench: New Delhi

O.A. No.800/2015

This the 5^th day of July, 2022

Hon’ble Ms. Manjula Das, Chairman

Hon’ble Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)

Manoj Gupta

(Aged 41 years)

S/o Sh. R.L. Gupta

R/o E-2/114, Shastri Nagar

Delhi-110052.

… Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Ajesh Luthra)

Versus

Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Through its Commissioner

Civic Centre, Minto Road

New Delhi.

… Respondent

(By Advocates: Mr. R.V. Sinha with Mr. Amit Yadav)

ORDER (ORAL)

Hon’ble Ms. Manjula Das, Chairman

At the very outset, Mr. R.V. Sinha, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that on

the merger of all the three Municipal Corporations into

one MCD through the Delhi Municipal Corporation

2

Item No.4

OA No.800/2015

(Amendment) Act, 2022 the applicant should file the

amended memo of parties. Mr. Ajesh Luthra, learned

counsel for the applicant has accordingly filed the

amended memo of parties. The amended memo of

parties is taken on record. Registry is directed to correct

the array of parties. Learned counsel for the applicant

requested to proceed with the matter as the same is

pending for the last eight years.

2. The case of the applicant as argued by Mr. Ajesh

Luthra, learned counsel for the applicant is that the

applicant is a physically handicapped person. By way of

the present OA he is seeking promotion from the post of

Junior Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer under

PH category. According to learned counsel for the

applicant, the applicant earlier approached this Tribunal

by filing OA No.701/2009. This Tribunal vide its order

dated 09.07.2009 directed the respondents to calculate

the quota on year-wise basis and then consider the case

of the applicant for promotion. The said order was

carried to the Hon’ble High Court as well as Apex Court.

However, both the higher legal fora rejected the challenge

of the respondents. Thereafter, the applicant approached

3

Item No.4

OA No.800/2015

the respondents, but his claim was rejected by the

respondents vide the impugned order dated 07.08.2014

stating that his case did not fall within the zone of

consideration, and that the review was restricted upto

the year 2004. In view of the said order dated

07.08.2014, the contempt filed by the applicant was also

dismissed. Hence this OA.

3. According to the learned counsel for the applicant,

during the pendency of the present OA in another OA

No.1276/2012 filed by similarly situated physically

handicapped

person,

this

Tribunal

directed

the

respondents to hold Review DPCs. In compliance of the

said directions the respondents held review DPCs on

18.09.2015 and 22.09.2015 and reviewed all the cases of

promotion of Junior Engineers, for the years from 1997

to 2007. In view of the recommendations of the review

DPCs

held,

the

respondents

issued

order

dated

01.12.2015 promoting various Junior Engineers to the

post of Assistant Engineer. Learned counsel for the

applicant submitted that one junior of the applicant who

was placed at Sl. No.988, namely, Pratap Singh, was also

promoted under the PH category, whereas the applicant’s

4

Item No.4

OA No.800/2015

position in the seniority list was 974. However, his case

was not considered. When this fact came to the

knowledge of the applicant, he filed MA No.756/2016

seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the

claim of the applicant for promotion from any date prior

to the promotion of his junior. The said MA was allowed

by this Tribunal vide order dated 06.12.2016, with a

direction to the respondents to file response, if any, to

the additional documents filed by the applicant through

the aforesaid MA. Mr. R.V. Sinha, learned counsel for

the respondents seeks some more time to take

instructions or to file response to the additional

documents. In our view, enough time has been given to

the respo