Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 12517
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A), Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)
S.M. Matloob – Appellant
Versus
The Director General, Indian Council for Cultural Relations – Respondent
O.A. No.110/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: In person
For the Respondents: Shri M.K. Bhardwaj
Promotion eligibility requires meeting specific service criteria, not merely seniority, and claims barred by unreasonable delays are dismissed.
Headnote:(A) Service matters - Promotion - The applicant sought promotion to the rank of Programme Director, previously promoted to UDC and Assistant after a disciplinary action. Promotion criteria required prior service in the Programme Officer rank which the applicant did not fulfill. The Tribunal dismissed the OA based on lack of eligibility and significant delay in filing. (Paras 6.2, 7.2, 8)
(B) Limitations - Court's jurisdiction - An application not filed within the mandated periods defined by law is barred. Delay in approaching the court undermines other candidates' rights to promotions secured through timely actions. (Paras 5, 6.6)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, after being penalized and subsequently reinstated with full wages, filed for promotion after notable delays following disciplinary actions and the promotion of juniors to higher ranks.
Findings of Court:
Promotion requires meeting eligibility criteria set forth by the governing rules; seniority alone does not grant entitlement without required service. More than a decade of delay in litigation barred his claims for promotion.
Issues: The main issues concerned applicant's eligibility for promotion despite his juniors' advancements and the problem of delay affecting his case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court stated eligibility for promotion must align with service rules rather than mere seniority and delay in claims adversely affects the merits of promotion requests.
Result: Present OA is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. promotion eligibility must align with prescribed service conditions. (Para 5) |
ORDER
By Hon’ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J) :-
1.1 The present OA has been filed by the applicant seeking promotion to the rank of Programme Director.
1.2 The factual matrix of the case is that the present applicant was appointed as Arabic Typist in the Indian Council for Cultural Relations (ICCR) on 17.08.1979. He was promoted to the post of UDC on 02.01.1991 and to the rank of Assistant on 29.10.2002. He retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2015. A disciplinary case was initiated against the applicant and on 19.08.2005, it was culminated in the penalty of compulsory retirement from service by the Competent Authority. Being aggrieved, he filed OA No. 4473/2013 before this Tribunal. This Tribunal vide order dated 09.05.2014, allowed the said OA quashing the aforesaid order dated 19.08.2005. The Tribunal ordered that the applicant is not entitled to arrears of pay applying the principle of „no work no pay‟. Being aggrieved, he filed Writ Petition No. 5226/2014 before the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court of Delhi, which was disposed of vide order dated 21.05.2014, allowing 50% of back wages. The applicant filed Civil Appeal No. 920/2017 before the Hon‟ble Apex Court. On 24.01.2017, the Hon‟ble Apex Court allowed 100% back wages to the applicant. The Order of the Hon‟ble Apex Court has been complied with by the respondents. Subsequently, the applicant filed another OA No. 1832/2018, seeking consequential reliefs including promotion allowances and other benefits with 18% interest. This Tribunal vide order dated 08.12.2020 disposed of the said OA with a direction to the applicant to file comprehensive representation before the respondents. The applicant filed his representation on 08.12.2020 followed by reminders dated 11.01.2021 and 12.04.2021, for fixing his seniority and based on these representations, the respondents vide order dated 05.03.2021 granted financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme to the applicant because he has not got the promotion after the rank of Assistant. Since the respondents have not fixed the seniority of the applicant and given promotion to the next higher rank at par his juniors, feeling aggrieved, he filed the present OA seeking the following reliefs:-
“a) Kindly pass a reasoned and speaking order setting aside the impugned order dt 05.03.2021 and directing the Respondent to grant the applicant the pay scale of Rs. 15600-39100+6600 (Programme Director grade pay) instead of provisional payment of Rs. 9300-34800+4200 (grade pay) or as per the entitlement along with arrears of interest from due date till realization, and to dispose of the same in a time bound manner.
b) Kindly pass order to provide seniority as per the entitlement or grant at least and pay the arrears of pay with 18% interest to the applicant from the date the same become due till the date of actual payments.
(c) Kindly direct the Respondent to produce the relevant records in respect of Service Rules and relevant Establishment Orders which is followed by the Respondent for perusal of this Hon'ble Tribunal.
(d) Kindly direct the respondent to clarify and determine the inter se seniority of the Applicant in view of the principles enunciated.
(e) Kindly pass any other proper and further relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in favor of the applicant and against the respondent.”
1.3 The applicant has given some facts through MA No. 3547/2024 and in paragraph 3 of the said MA, he has stated that two of his juniors namely, Shri Sardar Singh Rawat and Shri Syed Tajul Hasan have been promoted to the rank of Programme Officer w.e.f. 03.08.2011. As they were junior to him, he is entitled for promotion as Programme Officer w.e.f. 03.08.2011 and Programme Director w.e.f. 28.10.2016. His basic contention is that as his juniors have been promoted to the next higher rank and the effect of penalty was nullified upto
