Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, JJ
Dev Prakash – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through General Manager (P) N.E. Railway – Respondent
Original Application No.1407/2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri A.K. Pandey
For the Respondents: Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha
Promotion rights are conditional; no vested right exists for retrospective seniority after retirement.
Headnote:[Statute Analysis] The application was filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking quashing of an order and promotion directions. [Facts of the Case] The applicant claimed seniority over two respondents and challenged their promotion based on roster reservation. [Findings of Court] The court observed that the promotions were consistent with policies and determined that the applicant’s claims were invalid after retirement. [Issues] The issue revolved around whether the roster system for promotions was appropriately applied. [Ratio Decidendi] The court clarified that vacancies must be filled according to the roster, emphasizing that there is a right to be considered for promotion but no vested right to be promoted or receive retrospective seniority. [Result] The Original Application is dismissed as no further relief carries since the applicant is retired and financial equivalency has been addressed under the MACP scheme.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim for promotion validity based on prior seniority. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. understanding of roster reservation and applicant's position. (Para 6 , 8 , 12) |
| 3. concluding judgment on dismissal of application. (Para 7 , 10) |
| 4. judicial clarification on promotion rights post-retirement. (Para 9 , 11 , 13) |
Delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)
Heard Shri Shailesh Agrawal holding brief of Shri A.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Instant Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following main relief(s):-
“8.1 Issue an appropriate order or direction of suitable nature quashing the impugned order dated 28/29.04.2014 passed by the DRM (P) Izzatnagar Bareilly the respondent No.3 (Annexure No.A-1 to the Compilation No.1)
8.2 Issue a further order or direction of appropriate nature directing the authorities to promote the applicant to the post of Mill Right Fitter Grade –I at the post which had fallen vacant on account of promotion of Sri Ramdev Rai.”
3. Learned counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant joined North Eastern Railway as Khalasi on 01.08.1991, whereas private respondent nos. 6 and 7 joined subsequently. The applicant claims seniority over them. He submits that after qualifying the technical test, he was promoted to Millwright Fitter Grade-III vide order dated 28.02.1996, and even thereafter, his seniority stood above respondent nos. 6 and 7, as reflected in the seniority list of 01.04.1996.
4. According to the applicant’s counsel, in 1997–98, one post of Millwright Fitter Grade-I was downgraded as Grade-II. While filling up the restructured posts, the department promoted respondent no. 6 (Scheduled Caste), superseding the applicant, under the pretext of roster reservation. The applicant represented on several occasions between 1997–1999, but his grievance remained unredressed. The seniority list of 1999 placed respondent no. 6 above him in Grade-II, whereas he continued in Grade-III.
5. The counsel further asserts that in subsequent restructurings of 2002 and 2003, respondent nos. 6 and 7 continued to secure further promotions on the strength of reserved category roster points, while the applicant remained stagnant. According to him, when Sri Ramdev Rai (General Category) vacated the post of Millwright Fitter Grade-I upon promotion as Senior Technician in 2013, the said vacancy ought to have been filled by him, being the next senior-most general category candidate. However, the authorities once again gave the benefit of promotion to respondent no. 7 by treating the vacancy as reserved under the so-called ‘L’-type roster. His representation dated 08.10.2013 was rejected, and hence the present OA is filed before this Tribunal.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents by filing counter affidavit dated 06.09.2016, submits that the applicant was appointed as Diesel Khalasi on 30.08.1989 and later promoted as Millwright Fitter Grade-III on 28.02.1998. However, at the relevant time, there was only one post of Millwright Fitter Grade-II, which was already occupied. On restructuring, another post was earmarked for Scheduled Caste as per reservation policy and filled by respondent no. 6.
7. It is further stated that once promoted against a reserved post, respondent no. 6 became senior to the applicant in the higher cadre and accordingly secured further promotion to Millwright Fitter Grade-I. Likewise, respondent no. 7, also belonging to SC category, was accommodated in subsequent restructuring. The applicant’s representations and appeal were duly considered and rejected, as communicated to him.
8. The counsel contend that the entire process was strictly in accordance with restructuring schemes, reservation roster, and instructions of Railway Board. The applicant has already been granted MACP upgradations and is in recei
