Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 9496
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Kumar Rajesh Chandra, A, Rajveer Singh Verma, J
Shankara Nand Jha – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India – Respondent
OA
For the Applicants: Applicant in person
For the Respondents: Shri Bindhyachal Rai
The recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee is not obligatory for the Appointing Authority, which must have valid reasons to disregard it. Parity cannot be claimed across different field offices under prior policy.
Headnote:(A) Central Government - Promotion - The denial of promotion from Junior Hindi Translator to Senior Translator since 2016 was challenged; the applicant's claim for antedating promotions on grounds of parity with junior officials was found unfounded due to no local vacancy and establishment of Centralized Rajbhasha Cadre post-2017. (Paras 1, 28, 29)
(B) Administrative Law - Principle of fair promotion - The recommendations of the DPC are not binding on the Appointing Authority; a reasonable rationale must be given for not accepting recommendations. (Para 28(viii))
Facts of the case:
The applicant sought promotion based on erroneous denial despite eligibility as per departmental rules, claiming unfair treatment against juniors promoted earlier.
Findings of Court:
The applicant was not entitled to promotions due to differing field office regulations and the establishment of a centralized policy.
Issues: The primary issue concerned the unjust denial of the applicant’s promotion based on rank while juniors were promoted in different offices.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that promotions are to be governed by local field offices and regulations in place at the time, dismissing claims of parity.
Result: OA dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. promotion eligibility conditions and procedures. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 18) |
| 2. establishment of centralized rajbhasha cadre and its impact. (Para 4 , 20 , 22) |
| 3. court's conclusions on promotion rights and dpc recommendations. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
ORDER
Per:- Rajveer Singh Verma, Member [J]
1. Instant OA has been filed by the applicant for the following reliefs:
“A. Denial of Promotion of applicant from the post of Junior Hindi Translator to the post of Sr. Hindi Translator with effect from 01.04.2016, despite his such promotion being processed and recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee but denied upon erroneous reasons recorded in Para 7 and 8 of Note Sheet, communicated to applicant vide letter dated 24.01.2019 as contained in Annexure -A/1, may be declared erroneous and the same may be set aside.
B. Decision against the applicant dated 25.06.2021, taken in the File communicated to applicant vide RTI Online Communication dated 15/09/2022, as contained in Annexure A/2, may be declared incorrect and the same may be set aside, whereby the claim of applicant for anti-dating of his promotion Orders against the posts of Sr. Translator as well as to the post of Hindi Officer, by giving effect to his promotion to the post of Sr. Translator with effect from 01.04.2016 and to the post of Hindi Officer with effect from 01.01.2020, has erroneously been negated on incorrect ground of Centralized Cadre.
C. The respondent authorities may be directed to allow the applicant his Promotion from the post of Junior Hindi Translator to the post of Sr. Hindi Translator with effect from 01.04.2016, on the basis of recommendations of the DPC for his such promotion, as recorded in Para 7 and 8 of Note Sheet, communicated to applicant vide letter dated 24.01.2019, as contained in Annexure A/1, with all consequential benefits.
D. The respondent authorities may be directed to carry out anti-dating of promotion Orders of applicant against the posts of Sr. Translator as well as to the post of Hindi Officer, allowed to him subsequently vide Orders dated 28/05/2018, as contained in Annexure A/10 and vide Order dated 31 December 2021, as contained in Annexure A/15, by giving effect to his promotion to the post of Sr. Translator with effect from 01.04.2016 and to the post of Hindi Officer with effect from 01.01.2020, with all consequential benefit.
E. The respondent authorities may be directed to allow the applicant penal interest upon arrears of difference of his pay, as the applicant has erroneously been denied his successive promotions to the post of Senior Translator and Hindi Officer with due date i.e. with effect from 01.04.2016 and 01.01.2020 respectively, restraining him to perform against his promoted posts.
F. Any Other Relief / Reliefs as the applicant is entitled and Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the ends of justice.”
2. The brief facts of the case of the applicant as narrated by him in the OA is that the he is presently employed as Hindi Officer, at Office of the Accountant General (Audit) Bihar, Patna.
3. That the applicant participated in Junior Translator Examination in Subordinate Offices 2010 conducted by the Staff Selection Commission and succeeded in the same vide Result dated 18.5.2011. (Annexure-A/3). The position in rank of the applicant in the result is at Serial No.- 21 and other employees, namely Subhash Chand Yadav is at Serial No.9, Puja Singh is at Serial No. 30, Sanjeev at Serial No 98. Kiran Pal Singh at Serial no. 139 and Saurabh Singh was declared successful subsequently through Reserve List and is at Serial No. 6 of the Result from Reserve List.
4. That Senior Translator and Hindi Officers are promotional posts. That appointment on all India basis in the department started through Staff Selection Commission in Junior Translators (CSOLS)/ JHT (in subordinate offices) Exam., 2010. Candidates selected through this exam (including applicant) joined the department in 2012. That there was a proposal to
