The court established that delays in appointments and promotions caused by bureaucratic inefficiency cannot prejudice the rights of applicants, and they are entitled to notional benefits accordingly.

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :

Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn our attention to the impugned order dated 21.06.2019 (Annexure A1) whereby the representation 12.10.2018 of the applicant had been rejected by the respondents stating that his request for grant of seniority and fixation of his pay at par with his batch-mates (drivers) w.e.f. 29.10.2008 alongwith all the consequential benefits viz. promotion, pay and allowance and arrears of pay etc. has been considered in detail but the same has not been found feasible for acceptance by the competent authority.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn reference to the fact that initially an OA No.3271/2009 had been preferred by the applicant before this Tribunal, which was dismissed on 10.10.2011, subsequent to which, a review petition was also preferred by him, which got dismissed as well. Thereafter, a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.899/2013 was filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and vide decision dated 21.02.2013, the Hon’ble High Court remanded the said OA to this Tribunal.

2.1 Consequent upon the remand of the matter, the same was heard in detail and following decision was passed by this Tribunal on 17.12.2013:

“13. Considering the aforementioned facts and arguments, we are of the view that the applicant fulfilled the eligibility condition of possessing a valid HMV licence for 3 years on the relevant date and he cleared all the written/skill tests and secured marks equal to the last selected candidate and was 6th in the merit list after the last selected candidate. If the information given by the respondents under RTI to the applicant is true, the applicant would have been considered for selection, had respondents not rejected his candidature erroneously for not fulfilling the condition of 3 years for HMV licence since there would be 14 vacancies to be filled and the applicant was 6th in the order of general candidates after the last selected candidate. If the respondents had filled up all of 3873 vacancies, with the last candidate being Shri Subhash Chand, the applicant has no case. In the absence of specific information on this issue, we direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the applicant after reassessing whether there remained unfilled vacancies after the last recommended candidate namely Sh. Subhash Chand. If there were unfilled vacancies, the applicant shall be offered appointment subject to fulfilling other laid down conditions for appointment. With the aforesaid directions the OA is disposed of. No costs.”

2.2 We also take note of the fact that in OA No.3271/2009, following prayer was made by the applicant:-

“(a) To direct the respondents to appoint the Applicant to the post of Driver in DTC with all consequential benefits or in the alternative direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the Applicant for appointment to the post of Driver and if the Applicant is found FITand eligible then he shall be appointed to the said post with all consequential benefits viz. seniority, promotion, back wages etc.”

2.3 Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that an MA seeking execution and a CP were preferred by the applicant as the respondents were not implementing the direction issued by this Tribunal. Consequently, the applicant was accorded offer of appointment on 08.05.2015 and after qualifying the subsequent medical examination, so conducted by the respondents, the applicant joined the services of the respondents on 09.04.2016, pursuant to which, the order dated 16.05.2018 was passed by the respondents confirming the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant preferred the aforementioned representation dated 12.10.2018. However, the same was rejected by the respondents. Hence, the present OA.

2.4 Learned counsel for the applicant cont