Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 10098
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Om Prakash VII, J, Mohan Pyare, A
Parsoti Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 1208 OF 2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri Ravi Sharma
For the Respondents: Sri Raj Pal Singh, Sri Vinod Kumar Pandey
No arrears for proforma promotions without actual higher responsibility; stale seniority claims post-retirement not granted.
Headnote:The applicant, a Scheduled Caste employee initially appointed as Office Peon in 1984, sought fixation of seniority and pay as Jr. Clerk from 1986 based on ad hoc promotion and later success in selection process post exoneration from disciplinary charges under Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968. Prior Tribunal orders directed declaration of results and consequential benefits, but respondents denied arrears citing Para 228 of IREM Vol. I and RBE No.27/2007, as applicant did not shoulder higher responsibility continuously. Court found claim stale post-retirement in 2014, no entitlement to re-set seniority affecting settled cadres. Key issue: Whether success in delayed selection post-exoneration entitles employee to retrospective pay fixation and promotions from 1986/1994 despite gaps in service on higher post. Ratio: No arrears payable for proforma promotions without actual responsibility (Para 228 IREM upheld by Supreme Court in Union of India v. P.O. Abraham and Tarsem Lal); stale claims post-retirement not maintainable; impugned order valid absent deficiencies. Original Application dismissed; no merit in challenge to rejection of representation for arrears and retiral benefits.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. employee's ad hoc service, selection participation, disciplinary exoneration, delayed promotion. (Para 2) |
| 2. respondents deny arrears absent higher responsibility or legal right from recommendations. (Para 3) |
| 3. summary of litigation history and consequential benefits claim. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. stale claims barred; no arrears for proforma promotions per irem and rbe. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. oa dismissed, no interference with impugned order. (Para 18 , 19) |
ORDER
Per Justice Om Prakash VII, Member-J
By means of this Original Application (OA), the applicant has sought the following relief(s):-
“(a) That the Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash impugned order dated 10.6.2016 issued by the Divisional Railway Manager, NCR, Agra, respondent no.3 denying fixation of seniority and pay of the applicant on the post of Jr.Clerk w.e.f. 10.7.1986 upto 4.3.1994 in continuation to adhoc promotion of the applicant w.e.f. 10.7.1986 being continuous working on the post of Jr. Clerk since 10.7.1986 to 4.3.1994 with all consequential benefits i.e. further promotion on higher grade with fixation of seniority and pay and payment of arrear thereof. The impugned order dated 10.6.2016 issued by the DRM/NCR/Agra is not maintainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be set-aside by the Hon’ble Tribunal.
(b) That the Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the Divisional Railway Manager, NCR, Agra, Respondent no.3 to fix the pay and seniority of the applicant as Jr. Clerk w.e.f. 10.7.1986 to 4.3.1994, in continuation to his promotion as Clerk w.e.f. 10.4.1986 against regular post by the DRM, Jhansi, Central Railway, Jhansi. Accordingly the applicant is entitled for pay fixation and seniority as Jr. Clerk w.e.f. 10.7.1986 and further promotion in higher grades at par with his juniors against SC quota with payment of arrear of pay etc.
(c) That the Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the Divisional Railway Manager, NCR, Agra, Respondent no.3 to revise the retiral benefits and pensionary benefits with pension of the applicant as paid to him after his retirement from Railway service on 31.7.2014 and fixation of pension and payment of arrears of pension accordingly w.e.f. 31.7.2014.
(d) That the Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to allow heavy cost in favour of the applicant.
(e) That the Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass any other order or direction as may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. The facts leading to this Original Application are that the applicant, who belonged to Scheduled Caste category, was initially appointed on the post of Office Peon w.e.f. 1.1.1984. According to the applicant, one post of Jr. Clerk was lying vacant at Central Railway Mathura Jn.and as such the applicant was asked to perform the duties on the post of Jr. Clerk w.e.f. 14.12.1984 and thereafter the applicant started to perform the duty on the post of Jr. Clerk. The applicant, thereafter preferred a representation dated 2.9.1986 seeking his promotion to the post of Jr. Clerk, which was lying vacant since long. The said representation of the applicant was forwarded with recommendations that the applicant be appointed on adhoc basis till a regularly selected candidate joins. After considering the request of the applicant, he was promoted on the post of Jr. Clerk on adhoc basis vide order dated 21.7.1987.
2.1 The DRM, Jhansi through letter dated 1.4.1992 conducted selection for promotion on the post of Jr. Clerk against 33 1/3% departmental promottee quota in Electrical Branch of Jhansi Division. The applicant claims that he being senior most eligible Scheduled Caste candidate, was allowed to appear in the aforesaid selection on the post of Jr. Clerk in which he was appeared. The result of written test was declared on 4.3.1994, but the result of the applicant was not declared.
2.2 According to O.A., the applicant was reverted from the post of Jr. Clerk (adhoc) to the po
