Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 11120
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr. Manish Garg, J, Dr. Anand S. Khati, A
Tilak Raj – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi – Respondent
O.A. No.2167/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Krishan Kumar Chugh, Ms. Nidhi T. Raj
For the Respondents: Ms. Anupama Bansal, Ms. Neha Bairagee
The sealed cover procedure cannot be arbitrarily applied to deny promotion to a government servant whose suspension has been revoked.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Regularization - Sealed Cover Procedure - The applicant sought regularization as per seniority; the respondents incorrectly adopted sealed cover procedure without due cause; the applicant’s prior suspension was lifted, thus barring denial of promotion. (Paras 1, 3.1, 4, 6.8)
(B) Constitutional Principles - Equality - The failure to consider the applicant for promotion, despite his eligibility and the revocation of suspension, raises concerns of arbitrariness and discrimination in administrative procedures. (Paras 7.1, 7.3)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was denied promotion despite being eligible as juniors were promoted. The contention centered on the misuse of sealed cover procedure against him.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal directed the respondents to review and consider the applicant's promotion, allowing his claims for regularization and benefits from the due date.
Issues: Whether the sealed cover procedure was appropriately invoked, and whether the denial of promotion was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal ruled that merely adopting the sealed cover procedure without valid grounds is unjust. The absence of suspension orders does not permit deprivation of an applicant's eligibility for promotion.
Result: Application allowed; respondents directed to open sealed cover and reconsider for promotion.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant sought relief for regularization of promotion. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
ORDER
Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
In the present case, the applicant seeks the following relief:-
“(a) That the applicant be regularized with immediate effect as per seniority no. 934.”
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant referred to daily order dated 17.07.2025 passed by this Tribunal, which is reproduced below:
“Mr. Krishnan Kumar Choogh appears along with Ms. Nidhi T. Raj for the applicant and submits that since the vakalatnama of the arguing counsel who has filed the present OA was already on record, his vakalatnama was returned back and same is now placed on record.
The learned counsels for the applicant contended that the applicant was considered in DPC held on 20.09.2013 and promotion order from the post of Junior Engineer, Civil to Assistant Engineer, Civil on ad-hoc basis was issued vide order dated 28.02.2014 and the said order was issued after 5 months from the date of DPC and before issuance of promotion order to the applicant, the respondents promoted juniors to the applicant whereas the applicant was eligible for offer of promotion in September, 2013.
The applicant filed OA No. 684/2014 and meanwhile the respondents issued promotion order dated 28.02.2014 (Annexure A-2) and the said OA was disposed of vide order dated 05.01.2016.
The respondents have issued promotion order dated 06.10.2023 to the post of Executive Engineer, Civil on ad-hoc basis as evident from pages 14 to 15 (Annexure A-1) whereby juniors to the applicant from Sr. 105 to 238 have been promoted.
In nutshell, the crux of the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant is regarding grant of regularization from 06.10.2023 when the juniors to the applicants have been regularized.
The learned counsel for the applicant further emphasised that the respondents have taken false plea in the WS that the applicant was suspended hence DPC proceedings were kept in sealed cover, whereas the suspension of the applicant was already revoked on 23.08.2016 hence the pleadings in para 16 of the WS is contrary to record and the respondents arbitrarily denied consideration for further promotion prior to the juniors and the applicant is entitled for regularization from the date when the juniors were regularized.
The learned counsels for the applicant further submitted that the applicant was not under suspension and the respondents have erroneously stated in para 10 of the WS that due to suspension of the applicant, the recommendations of DPC for the Panel Year 2019-2023 were kept in sealed cover. So also, submits that the DPC was held on 20.09.2013 and due to delay of 5 months on the part of the respondents, the promotion order was issued on 28.02.2014 and meanwhile the juniors were promoted.
The respondents are directed to bring the proceedings of the Screening Committee held on 20.09.2013 in a sealed cover to establish why the juniors to the applicant were promoted and why promotion order in the case of applicant was issued after issuance of promotion order to the juniors and clarify why the DPC proceedings were kept in a sealed cover due to suspension of the applicant, whereas the suspension of the applicant was revoked in the year 2016.
The learned proxy counsel for the respondents seeks a short adjournment as the main arguing counsel is on her legs before the Hon’ble High Court.
It is made clear that no further extenstion of time shall be granted to the respondents and this Tribunal may invoke rule 16 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 and decide the matter based on the pleadings available on record on the next date of hearing.
List on 18.08.2025.”
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the relief sought in the present O.A. is not tenable subsequent to passing of an order dated 06.10.2023. Learned counsel added that the applicant ought to have suitably prayed for amendment of the O.A. and sough
