Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 13371
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr. Om Prakash, J, Mr. Mohan Pyare, A
Raj Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence – Respondent
Original Application No. 645 of 2012
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Jitendra Singh, Shri Anup Kumar, Shri R S Gupta
For the Respondents: Shri Subhash Chandra Mishra
Promotion denial based on non-appearance in trade tests is upheld; discrimination claims are dismissed since applicant failed to qualify required tests.
Headnote:(A) Promotion - Denial of promotion on grounds of non-appearance in trade tests - Demand to quash orders denying promotions and confer promotions retrospectively - SRO 29/2006 and its implications for promotions were central to the deliberation. (Paras 2-20)
(B) Legal principles - Held that the denial of promotions to similar candidates, without a compelling reason or acknowledgment of qualifications, constitutes discrimination.
(C) Direct recruitment - Issuing recruitment of candidates while denying promotions to qualified existing employees leads to a reduction in morale and undermines government policies. (Paras 4-10)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant seeks to quash prior denied promotions. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. eligibility and promotions contested; applicant claims discrimination. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. respondent argues the applicant did not qualify trade tests necessary for promotion. (Para 12 , 14) |
| 4. court dismisses application; no merit found in claims. (Para 19 , 20) |
ORDER
(By Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (Judicial)
Shri Ravi Shankar Prasad, Learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant was present on behalf of the applicant. Shri S C Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents was also present at the time of hearing.
2. The instant original application has been filed by the applicant seeking following relief:
“i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 15.04.2011 and consequential impugned order dated 02.12.2011 passed by the Commandant of the Workshop, respondent no. 4.
ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to accord:
(a) First promotion to the applicant on the post of Electrician (Skilled) w.e.f. 12.09.2002, the date on which candidates, namely, Raj Kumar Pandey and P.K Maithi were appointed as Electrician (Skilled) in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590;
(b) Second promotion to the applicant on the post of Electrician (Highly Skilled) w.e.f. 12.01.2010, the date on which candidates, namely Raj Kumar Pandey and P.K. Maithi were given promotion on the post of Electrician (Highly Skilled);
(c) Further promotion to the applicant to which he happens to be eligible and entitled to;
(d) Seniority to the applicant along with aforesaid Raj Kumar Pandey and P.K. Maithi and pay to the applicant the arrears of difference of salary and allied benefits accordingly coupled with interest.
iii. issue and other and further suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
iv. allow this OA with costs in favour of the applicant.”
3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant has filed this OA challenging the order dated 15.04.2011 and consequential order dated 02.12.2011 passed by the Establishment Officer, for and on behalf of the Commandant & Managing Director, 509, Army Base Workshop, Agra Cantt, Agra thereby denying him the promotion which he sought under his representation dated 07.03.2011. The major allegation of the applicant is that despite being similarly placed to the other candidates of the department, he has not been given the benefit of promotion, however, all the other employees have been granted promotion and thus he has been severely discriminated against by the respondents. The applicant has also contended that he fulfilled all the requisite eligibility criteria for being granted the benefit of promotion however the respondents had completely ignored the same and devoid the applicant of the benefit of promotion RITU and due to this reason, he has been filinig representations after representation and also approached before this Tribunal several times, but for no avail. The applicant has further contended that every time, he has approached before the Tribunal, his case has been disposed of by the Tribunal directing the respondents’ department to consider his representation and confer upon him the benefit of promotion but the same has never been done by the respondents as they kept on abstaining to give the actual benefit to the applicant citing one false reason or other. By way of the instant OA, the applicant has sought the quashing of the order dated 15.04.2011 and consequential order dated 02.12.2011 thereby directing the respondents to confer the benefit of first promotion, second promotion and further promotion upon him from the dates on which the other similarly placed candidates have been granted the same. All consequential benefits like seniority, etc. have also been prayed for.
4. I have heard learne
