The delay in holding DPCs for promotions constitutes a continuing wrong, requiring equal treatment for similarly situated employees, as established in precedent cases.

O R D E R

By Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):-

Since in all these OAs, the claims of the applicants are similar and identical based on the same grounds as well as same issues have been raised for claiming the same relief(s) and that the stand of the respondents is also the same in all these OAs, with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, all these OAs have been heard together and are being adjudicated by the instant common Order.

2. For the sake of writing of this common Order, OA No.1423/2021 is taken as a lead case.

OA No.1423/2021

3. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:-

i. set aside the Order No.HRM-II/C- 1(90)2018/E/77 dated 18.05.2020 passed by the Respondent Department, alternatively pass, order and direction, directing Respondent Department to grant Notional Promotion from the date of vacancy year i.e. (2011-2012);

ii. pass order and direction directing the Respondent Department to consider the Applicant for relaxation of qualifying service for promotion to the post of RPEC-II (notionally) and grant all consequential benefits;

iii. grant Senior Time scale to the Applicant;

iv. accord all consequential benefits thereafter;

v. award cost of the proceedings;

vi. pass any other order as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and allow cost in favour of the Applicant.

FACTS OF THE CASE:-

3.1 The applicant was appointed as Lower Divisional Clerk in the Respondent Department on 06.02.1981 in the Sub Regional Office Meerut, Employees Provident Fund Organisation (in short „EPFO‟), under the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India. He was promoted as Enforcement Officer/Assistant Accounts Officer on regular basis on 26.08.1993. The seniority list was made after 16-17 years from the year 2009 for Enforcement Officers and Assistant Accounts Officers, i.e., the feeder cadre for the promotion to the post of Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (in short „APFC‟). The seniority list was made after 16/17 years in the year 2009. It is a matter of record that regular vacancies existed, however, the Respondents failed to constitute DPC (Annexure A-2).

3.2 The applicant was due for consideration of promotion to the post of APFC and pertinently vacancies existed but the respondents intentionally and deliberately did not take any action for conveying DPC for consideration of the promotion of the concerned employees. The inaction on the part of the respondents was indubitably lackadaisical, negligent and it could be seen that batches of employees were ignored, causing stagnation and oppressive working conditions. It was never the case of the Department/respondents that financial upgradations were being accorded in lieu of the delayed promotions. No reason or justification was forthcoming to harass the employees.

3.3 It is stated that in the year 2010, the applicant was eligible and due for promotion to the post of APFC in the respondents‟ Department. The post of APFC in the Department is filled up by way of direct recruitment through UPSC and from the seniority quota amongst EO/AAO in the ratio 1:1. The eligible Enforcement Officers/Assistant Account Officers on the basis of their seniority are to be promoted to the next higher post of APFC on fulfilling the eligible criteria of 5 years of regular service. For such purpose, the respondents‟ department is mandated to hold a Department Promotion Committee (DPC), every year as per the extant rules and DoP&T instructions. The DPC is to be held every year so that the employees, who are eligible to be considered for promotion and given the exist