CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH Dated this the 3^rd day of December, Two Thousand Twenty Four CORAM :

HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN, MEMBER(J)

AND HON'BLE MR. SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER(A)

1. P. Sundaram S/o M. Penchalaiah, MultiTasking Staff (Emp Code 2383)

National Informatics Centre, (NIC)

Govt of India, Ministry of Information Technology, TN State Centre, Secretariat, Chennai. .. Applicant in OA No.1395/2018

2. M. Gopi S/o Munusamy, Multi-Tasking Staff (Emp Code 4236)

National Informatics Centre, (NIC)

Govt of India, Ministry of Information Technology, TN State Centre, Secretariat, Chennai . .. Applicant in OA No.1396/2018 By Advocate M/s. C. Sivanesan Vs.

The Director General, National Informatics Centre ‘HQ’

A-Block, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. .. Respondent in both the OAs By Advocate Mr. G. Dhamodaran

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member) Both the applicants have prayed for a direction to consider them for being promoted to the post of Lower Division Clerk in any one of the offices of the respondent.

2. Since an identical relief is prayed for in both the OAs which is founded on similar facts and circumstances, these applications were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

3. The facts leading to the filing of the OAs are as follows:

The 1st Applicant joined the service of the respondent on 17.09.1990, and the 2nd Applicant joined on 18.05.1994. Both the applicants were initially appointed as Group D staff and had completed their 8th std education at the time of joining the respondent's service. According to the Recruitment Rules in force in 2000, the required qualification for promotion to the position of LDC (Lower Division Clerk) was a pass in the 10th Standard. The 1st Applicant passed the 10th Standard in 2002, while the 2nd Applicant passed it in 1995. Therefore, both th applicants met the qualifications required for promotion to LDC as of 2002. The applicants submitted representations to the respondent, requesting their promotion to LDC, and these were forwarded along with recommendations, including details of their qualifications. However, no action was taken on their requests. The applicants were later re-designated as MTS (Group-C), and a common seniority list was implemented nationwide. Despite vacancies for the LDC position being available since 2002, these were not filled. After more than 25 years of service without promotion, the applicants' cases were again recommended by the Deputy Director in 2013, followed by another letter in 2018. Instead of promoting the applicants, the respondent promoted four employees who were juniors to them. Finally, the request of the Applicant in OA 1395 of 2018 was rejected by the respondent by a letter, dated 20.04.2018. Whereas the representation, dated 31.07.2015 of the applicant in the OA 1396 of 2018 did not evoke any response. As a result, the present OAs were filed by them to redress their grievances.

4. The learned counsel for the applicants argued that both applicants have over 25 years of unblemished service records and have been performing clerical duties since 1996. They were recommended by their department for promotion to the post of LDC. The respondent should have addressed the issue properly. The counsel further claimed that by 2002, the applicants met the qualification requirements (Matriculation) for promotion to LDC. Additionally, the Deputy Director of the Chennai office had recommended the applicants' promotion, but the recommendations were not acted upon in a timely manner, preventing their promotion.

5. The counsel also submitted that between 2002 and 2010, there were vacancies for the LDC position, yet the applicants were overlooked while more junior employees were promoted to Junior Secretariat Assistant in February 2018. This, the counsel argued, indicated malafide intentions and favoritism. Therefore, the counsel requested the relief sought in the current OA.

6. In response, the learned cou