ORDER (ORAL)

By Hon’ble Ms. Pratima K Gupta, Member (J):

The applicant was initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk on 30.09.1998, with the office of the respondents. Thereafter she was promoted to the post of Stenographer Grade-III on 15.09.2010. In terms of the Recruitment Rules for the post of Stenographer Grade-II, the applicant was eligible for promotion to the post of Stenographer Grade-II on completion of 5 years of regular service. To clarify, she was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of stenographer Grade II any time after 15.09.2015. On 15.05.2015 itself, the applicant has approached the respondents to conduct the DPC for consideration of her promotion to the post of Stenographer Grade-II. The DPC was conducted only on 12.05.2017 and on approval of the Minutes, the applicant was extended promotion w.e.f. 22.06.2017 as Stenographer Grade-II. The applicant preferred a representation dated 14.11.2017 followed by reminders dated 26.12.2017 and 11.05.2020 seeking antedating of this promotion w.e.f. the date of her eligibility i.e. from 14.09.2015 itself. The case of the applicant was considered and rejected by the respondents vide order dated 23.05.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant has preferred the present OA seeking following reliefs:-

“(1) Declare the orders dated 23.12.2019 and 23.05.2022 as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and quash and set aside the Order dated 23.12.2019 and 23.05.2022 passed by the Respondents wherein the Respondents effectively rejected the representation and grievances of the Applicant re.to. grant of promotion to her from retrospectively i.e. from 14.09.2015.

(ii) Call the Original file(s)/record(s) of the service records of the Applicant.

(iii) Direct the Respondents to give promotion to the Applicant retrospectively i.e. from 15.09.2015.

(iv) Direct the Respondents to give financial benefits of the retrospective promotion including the arrears of pay.

(v) Direct the Respondent to give the consequential benefit of Seniority to the Applicant.

(vi) Direct the Respondents to pay the interest @18% p.a.

upon the amounts due.

(vii) Award costs of this application in favour of the Applicant and against the Respondents, and, (viii) Pass any further order(s), directions as may be deemed just and proper to meet the ends of justice.”

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in terms of the guidelines of the DOPT, the respondents were obliged to conduct the DPC on annual basis. Drawing attention to the counter reply, he states that the respondents had convened the DPC for the vacancy year 2016-17 on 19.12.2016. However, in view of the DOPT OM dated 24.03.2009 wherein the respondents were advised to amend the Recruitment Rules enhancing the date of eligibility from 5 years to 10 years, the applicant could not be promoted. He confirms even today the Rules have not been amended and therefore the Rules for the year 1994 placed at page 16 are still in operation and have not been amended by the respondents till date. Accordingly, applicant has been incorrectly &

illegally deprived of the promotion from the date of her eligibility.

3.1 Learned counsel for respondents vehemently opposes the present OA drawing strength from para F and G of the reply, which read as under:-

“F. That in reply to the contents of the corresponding para it is submitted that on 14.05.2015, Ms. Uma Singh had submitted a representation for considering her promotion as the petitioner was completing the 5 years’ service in Stenographers Grade-III on 15.9.2015, which was taken up for consideration. However, as per the DoPT OM No. 22011/6/2013-Estt.(D) dated 28.5.2014(Copy annexed as ANNEXURE -R-1), the cut of date for determining the eligibility for promotion for financial year based vacancy year shall be 1st April of the vacancy year. As such, the official had not completed 5 years w.r.t. the cut of date of 1.4.2015 for the vacancy year 2015-16 and, therefore, was not eligible for promotion w.e.f. 15.9.2015.

G.