Entitlement to relief based on inclusion in the Select List and retirement not being a bar to promotion.

ORDER

Per Hon’bleMr.Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to promotion from the State Forest Service (SFS) to the Indian Forest Service (IFoS), the applicant has sought the following reliefs:

“1.To quash the impugned order dated 17.02.2020, contained as Annexure No. A-1 to this OA, with all consequential benefits. To extend the benefits of being IFS UP Cadre of Select List 2017 while including his name in the list and revise all benefits including pay, pension and other settlement dues etc.

To release the arrears of pay, pension, pensionary benefits etc along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of due till the actual date of payment.

Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper under the circumstances of the case, may also be passed.

Cost of the present case may also be awarded as the applicant has unnecessarily been dragged in litigation.”

2. The facts of the case are that the applicant, an officer of Uttar Pradesh Forest Service, was included at S. No. 1 in the Select List for 2017 (along with another officer, Shri Lalit Kumar Giri, who was placed at S. No. 2) prepared by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for promotion of SFS officers of Uttar Pradesh cadre to IFoS against promotion quota vacancies in accordance with regulation 3 of the Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966.

When the applicant was not promoted to IFoS, and Shri Lalit Kumar Gupta who was placed below him in the Select List for 2017 was promoted, and the applicant’s representation to the respondents elicited no response, he approached this Tribunal in OA No. 448 of 2019 whereby an order dated 17.12.2019 was issued by this Tribunal directing the respondents to decide the representation dated 09.08.2019 of the applicant. The respondents disposed of the applicant’s representation vide order dated 17.02.2020 expressing their inability to appoint him in IFoS for the reason that by the time the Government of Uttar Pradesh furnished proposal for induction of SFS officers to IFoS, the applicant had superannuated and was no longer a member of SFS. Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.

3. It is the contention of the applicant that he stood senior to Shri Lalit Kumar Giri and if the respondents had conducted the meeting of Selection Committee at the appropriate time, he would have been promoted to IFoS. The applicant has cited the decision rendered by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 830 of 2014 Sheo Prakash Anjor vs Union of India &Ors in support.

4. The respondents state that the applicant was considered for promotion to IFoS as per the Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966 and his name was included in the final Select List issued under regulation 7, but due to the retirement of the applicant from service on 31.05.2019, he was not found suitable for promotion under regulation 9.

5. We have heard both the parties.

6. The learned counsel for the applicant has drawn our attention to the judgment dated 16.10.2014 of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Chand vs Union of India &Ors [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 844 of 2013] in a similar matter which is extracted below:

“We are not required to state the facts in detail. Suffice it to state that the name of the petitioner finds mention in the Select List meant for 2006 published on 27.11.2012, but he could not be extended the benefit as he stood superannuated by that time. A similar matter had travelled to this Court in Union of India and Anr. vs Hemraj Singh Chauhan &Ors (2010) 4 SCC 290 wherein a view was expressed in favour of the respondents after repelling the contentions raised by the Union of India. In pursuance of the aforesaid judgment, the Government of India vide order dated 25.05.2011 has passed an elaborate order after referring to a passage from the said decision. The order issuing direction which is essential for adjudication of the present cas