CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI O.A. No. 2985/2025 Reserved on: 05.12.2025 Pronounced on: 06.01 .2026 Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)

Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)

Sh Vikas, Group 'C' Serving as Assistant Superintendent, Srty. No.-161, Age 42 years, S/o Late Sh. Raj Singh, R/o H.No-483, V&P.O- Akbar Pur, Barota, Sonipat (HR) Pin Code -

131001 ….Applicant (By Advocate : Mr. Anmol Pandita)

VERSUS

1. Govt. of NCTD Through the Chief Secretary Govt. of NCTD, Nava Sachivalya IP Estate New Delhi.

2. The Principal Secretary (Home), Govt. of NCT of Delhi Delhi Secretariat, 1.P. Estate, New Delhi

3. The Director General (Prisons), Tihar Jail, Near Lajwanti Garden Chowk, Janak Puri, Delhi-64 …Respondent (By Advocate : Mr. Amit Yadav, Dr. Monika Bhargava, Mr.

Abhimanyu Anand)

ORDER

Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)

Learned counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant was appointed as Assistant Superintendent in the respondent department on 23.06.2009. The applicant has always discharged his duties with utmost sincerity, diligence and to the satisfaction of his superiors.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant was implicated in a criminal case vide FIR No. 0095/2022 u/s 7/8 PC Act, PS-EOW (Economic Offences Wing) dated 16.06.2022. The FIR is still under investigation and till date, no charge has been framed or any proceedings concluded.

3. Counsel for the applicant further stated that the applicant became eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent in the year 2025.

4. That the department issued list dated 11.04.2025 and 27.06.2025, regarding promotion to the rank of Deputy Superintendent, but the name of the applicant was defer, while juniors were promoted, causing grave prejudice to the applicant.

5. That the applicant submitted representations dated 12.06.2025 requesting that his case be considered for promotion. It was specifically submitted that mere pendency of FIR / disciplinary case cannot be treated as an impediment for promotion.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant stated that the respondents never responded to the aforesaid representations, causing further prejudice to the applicant. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the decision of this Hon’ble Tribunal in identical in O.A. No. 834/2025, Dalip Kumar vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., decided on 29.05.2025, and multiple other OAs, wherein under similar circumstances, the Tribunal held as follows:

“11. It is apt to mention keeping in view aforesaid dicta of Hon'ble Apex Court in K.V. Jankiraman (supra) as well as above OMs that once the respondents have themselves admitted that the said DPC had not placed the name of the applicant under sealed cover but has deferred the same for want of status report, the said ground for deferment of promotion of the applicant to the post in question is not sustainable in view of the admitted fact that on the date of eligibility for promotion to the post of Assistant Superintendent, there was nothing against the applicant like charge has been filed before the competent court of jurisdiction in the aforesaid FIR or chargesheet has been issued in disciplinary proceedings or the applicant has been placed on the date when the applicant had acquired eligibility for promotion to the said post. Therefore, we are of the considered view that deferment of promotion of the applicant to the post in question solely on the ground of seeking status report of the aforesaid FIR is illegal and not sustainable. 12. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons recorded above, the present OA is allowed. The respondents are directed to promote the applicant to the post of Assistant Superintendent from the date, i.e., 07.01.2025 when his batch-mates and juniors were promoted with other consequential benefits, if otherwise there is no other impediment, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. 13.