Promotion is effective only when duties are assumed; retrospective or post-retirement stepping up is generally not allowed, especially where the parties belong to different cadres; right to be considered for promotion does not guarantee a grant of promotion or parity with a junior.

ORDER

By Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

The present original application has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of the AT Act , with the following reliefs:-

“(a) to issue an order or direction in the suitable nature quashing the order impugned order 17.01.2019 passed by the respondent No.2 under the signature of Assistant Personal Officer, North Central Railway Allahabad (Annexure No. A-1 to this original application).

(b) To issue an order or direction in the suitable nature directing the respondents department to stepping up the pay of the applicant in grade pay of Rs. 4200/- (9300-34800) from the date Shri Ram Babu colleague employee was upgraded.

(c) To issue any order or direction which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(d) To award the cost of the application to the applicant”.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was working with the government department since 1974 and was regularized in 1981 as a Khalasi (Mason). One of his colleagues, Ram Babu, was also regularized on the same date as a Khalasi (Carpenter). Both of them appeared for departmental tests together and got promoted to Technician Grade III, Grade II, and then Grade I. However, in 2003, Ram Babu was given another promotion to the post of Senior Technician with a higher grade pay of Rs. 4200, but the applicant was not given promotion. Applicant raised his grievance through his application. He also points out in the application that he worked as Technician Grade I for over 13 years and was fully eligible for the promotion. Feeling aggrieved, applicant had earlier approached the Tribunal by way of OA No. 185 of 2016, and the Tribunal disposed of the OA vide order dated 10.10.2018 directing the department to consider his request and give a clear reply. In 2019, the department rejected his claim, saying that no one junior to him was promoted before his retirement in 2010. But the applicant in his OA stated that his colleague Ram Babu, who retired in 2007, was given promotion in the year 2003 itself. Now, the applicant is again before the Tribunal, sought to quash the impugned order and his pay to be stepped up to grade pay of Rs.4200 grade.

3. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have stated that the applicant and Ram Babu were from different trades and streams. The applicant was a Mason and Ram Babu was a Carpenter. Since they belonged to different cadres, their promotional avenues and rules were not the same. The post of Senior Technician is a promotional post, and such promotions depend on cadre strength, eligibility, and availability of vacancies. The respondents stated in the counter affidavit that no one junior to the applicant was promoted to the grade pay of Rs.4200/- before the applicant retired. They emphasized that just because Ram Babu got the promotion does not mean the applicant was automatically entitled, as both belonged to different streams. According to the respondents, promotions cannot be claimed after retirement, especially when the employee did not perform the duties of that post while in service. Hence, the applicant’s claim for stepping up of pay to Rs.4200/- grade after retirement is not justified.

4. We have heard Shri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri K.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

5. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant was appointed under the respondents’ department on dat