ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J) The present O.A has been filed by the applicants under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:- i) To issue an order or direction setting aside the orders dated 21.07.2011 issued by Depot Director, PC (DPC), Air Headquarters, Vayu Bhawan, New Delhi 110106 and 11.08.2011 issued by Squadron Leader, Squadron Commander, Admin Support Group, 29 Equipment Depot, Air Force, Chakeri, Kanpur 208008 (Annexure Nos. A-1 and A-2 respectively to Compilation 1). ii) To issue an order or direction commanding the respondents to give promotional benefits to the applicant No. 1 w.e.f. 15.01.2004 and applicant No.2 w.e.f 09.07.2003 in pursuance of panel dated 03.07.2003 for the post of Store Superintendent Grade 5000-8000/- which is revised in pay band Rs. 9300-34800/- Grade Pay Rs. 4200/- per month. iii) To issue an order or direction commanding the respondents to give seniority and other consequential benefits to the applicants in comparison with their juniors who had been promoted in pursuance of the panel dated 03.07.2003. iv) To grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. v) To award the cost”.

2. The brief facts of the case are that a panel for promotion to the post of Store Superintendent was prepared but due to low grading in the ACR, the case of the applicants was not considered, which was communicated by letter dated 19.08.2003. Shri V.K. Giri, who was also aggrieved on the aforesaid communication order, had filed original application No. 1216 of 2003. The case of Shri V.K Giri was allowed by the Tribunal by order dated 07.09.2005. In compliance with the direction of the Tribunal dated 07.09.2005, the respondents have considered the case of Shri V.K. Giri, and the case of Shri V.K. Giri was rejected vide order dated 08.12.2005. Shri V.K. Giri had again challenged the aforesaid order before the Tribunal by filing OA No. 534 of 2006, which was decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 27.11.2009 and again directed the respondents to consider the case of Shri V.K. Giri. When respondents did not comply with the order of the Tribunal, Shri V.K Giri filed Contempt Petition No. 47 of 2010 and thereafter respondents promoted the Shri V.K. Giri w.e.f. 15.01.2004 after reconsideration of the review DPC. The case of Shri V.K. Giri is similar to the case of present applicants, hence applicants filed an application dated 28.03.2011, which was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 21.07.2011. The aforesaid order dated 21.07.2011 is assailed by the applicants in this OA.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

4. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that applicants were denied promotion on the basis of uncommunicated entry vide orders dated 3.7.2003 and 9.7.2003. A similarly situated person namely V.K. Giri, who had also been denied the promotion, had approached before this Tribunal in the year 2004 by filing OA and his OA was allowed. When direction given by the Tribunal was not complied with, contempt petition was filed thereafter he was given a promotion.

Applicants’ cases are also on the same footing. Several representations were pending before the respondents but the same were not decided timely. As and when the order, in the year 2011 on the representation, was passed, the present OA was filed in the year 2012. Thus it is within the limitation period. It was further argued that if one person in a similar situation has been allowed the benefit, it is not necessary for the other similarly situated employees to approach before the Tribunal.

Respondents ought to have extended the benefit to the applicants as they have allowed benefit to the similarly situated person V.K. Giri. To substantiate his argument, learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance following judgments:- “(i) S.S. Rathore Vs. State of Mad