Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 16102
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Manish Garg, Judicial Member, Chhabilendra Roul, Administrative Member
Raj Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A./1101/2021 (NAINITAL)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ashish Srivastava
For the Respondents: Dharmendra Tiwari
Seniority determined by entry dates and service records, not episodic pay parity; negative equality impermissible.
Headnote:The applicant, a civilian painter appointed in 1979, sought promotion to Master Craftsman (MCM) grade with effect from 01.01.1996 at par with junior Ramesh Chand, relying on prior tribunal order dated 17.04.2017 directing such promotion if facts not otherwise. Court examined career progression, pay fixation, and recruitment channels under circular dated 15.10.1984 introducing three-grade structure for industrial personnel. Findings: No specific seniority order challenged; parity not established by pay scales alone; respondents' comparative chart showed Ramesh Chand's earlier entry in 1966. Issues framed as whether applicant senior to Ramesh Chand for MCM promotion w.e.f. 01.01.1996, disregarding prior tribunal directions. Ratio: Seniority determined by entry dates and service records, not episodic pay parity; claiming parity with potentially erroneous grant amounts to negative equality, impermissible; applicant's promotions finalized per review DPC w.e.f. dates 15.10.1984, 15.10.1985, 20.05.2003 attained finality post High Court quashing. OA dismissed; no order as to costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual history of appointments and prior litigations (Para 2) |
| 2. applicant's claim of seniority based on pay and dates (Para 4) |
| 3. respondents' defense of different career paths (Para 5) |
| 4. seniority by entry dates, not pay parity (Para 6) |
| 5. oa dismissed for lack of merit (Para 7) |
ORDER
Hon’ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
By way of the present OA, the applicant seeks the following relief:
“8.(A) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the order dated 26.12.2017 and treat the applicant senior to Ramesh Chand.
(B) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to promote the applicant to the post of M.C.M. at par with Ramesh Chand or w.e.f. 01.01.1996.
(C) That this Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the applicant all consequential benefit along with 18% interest.
(D) That this Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to award the costs of this Original Application in favour of the applicant, throughout.”
2. The factual matrix of the present case is as follows:
2.1 The applicant was initially appointed as Civilian Painter on 18.04.1979 in Unit 57(1), ASC in the pay scale of Rs.225-308. He filed OA No.922/2004 seeking promotion to the post of Highly Skilled Grade-II and Grade-I with effect from 15.10.1984, as per policy decision communicated by order dated 15.10.1984. A Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal vide order dated 28.10.2009 directed the respondents to promote the applicant to the post of Highly Skilled Grade – II and Highly Skilled Grade-I with effect from 15.10.1984. In pursuance of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the respondents conducted a review DPC and promoted the applicant to the post of Highly Skilled Grade-II with effect from 15.10.1984 and Highly Skilled Grade-I with effect from 15.10.1985 as well as to the grade of Master Craftsman (MCM) with effect from 20.05.2003. This was communicated to the applicant vide order dated 1.11.2012. The applicant has submitted that it was only in April 2013 that his pay was fixed as Highly Skilled II and Highly Skilled I with effect from 15.10.1984 and 15.10.1985 respectively. After coming to know about the said pay fixation, the applicant gave representation dated 17.06.2014 to the respondents requesting that his promotion to the post of MCM should be with effect from 1.01.1996 instead of 20.05.2003 in accordance with the circular dated 20.05.2003 issued by the respondents (Annexure A-2). The applicant submitted further representation on 21.11.2014 stating that one Shri Ramesh Chand who has been promoted to the post of HS-I with effect from 1987, has been promoted to the grade of MCM with effect from 1997. Citing that Shri Ramesh Chand, who was junior to him in the cadre of HS-I, has been promoted as MCM in 1997, the applicant states that his promotion was made effective with effect from 20.05.2003. Being aggrieved, he filed OA number 1382/2015 before this Tribunal. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, passed the following order on 17.04.2017:
“Accordingly, the respondents are directed to promote the applicant to the post of M.C.M. w.e.f. 01.01.1996 at par with his junior Shri Ramesh Kumar, if the facts are not found otherwise, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is also made clear that whatsoever the consequential benefit will flow from the promotion, the applicant will be entitled for the same.”
2.2 The applicant approached the respondents for compliance of the order dated 17.04.2017 passed by this Tribunal by way of giving representation dated 7.11.2017. The respondents vide order dated 26.12.2017 rejected the claim of the applicant that he was senior to Shri Ramesh Chand. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed the present OA seeking the aforementioned reliefs.
3. Notices were issued to the respondents and they have filed their counter reply, to which the applicant has also filed rejoinder. Supplementary affidavits and written submissions have also been filed by the lea
