CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI O.A. No. 1158/2015 Reserved on : 28.01.2026 Pronounced on : 06.02.2026 Hon’ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)

Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)

Sushila Yadav, W/o Sh. Mahesh Kumar Yadav R/o G-475, Sriniwas Puri, New Delhi 110065 ….Applicant (By Advocate : Mr. Ranjan Kumar)

Vs.

1. Union of India Through Its secretary Environment and forest Ministry, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003

2. THE JOINT SECRETARY, FORESTS (SS) Environment and forest Ministry, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003

3. THE DIRECTOR National Zoological Park, Mathura Road, New Delhi, 4. Mrs Veena Chandra w/o Sh. Harish Chandra UDC, National Zoological Park, Mathura Road, New Delhi Through Director, National Zoological Park ….Respondents (By Advocate : Ms. Ring Baliyan)

ORDER Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A) :

The instant OA has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-

"a) Call for the records of the employment of the applicants, details of the documents available with them on the basis of which a junior to the applicant was promoted over and above the applicant.

b) Direct the respondents to set-aside the order of promotion of Juniors dated 11.03.2014 or in alternative the applicant be promoted over and above the juniors and be placed at a superior post from the juniors by changing the list of seniority, c) Grant any other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

2. The factual matrix of the case as per the counsel of the applicant is that the applicant is a visually handicapped person. Her name was recommended for appointment as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) under the respondents and she was appointed as such on 16.11.1987 in the National Zoological Park, Mathura Road, New Delhi. After her appointment, she along with others were imparted special departmental training from May 1988 to October 1988 to enable them to perform official duties efficiently. She was also granted special conveyance allowance at 85% of basic pay, subject to a maximum of Rs. 1000, vide office order dated 05.05.1988, wherein her designation was mentioned as LDC. As per the counsel the department vide letter dated 17.05.1988 forwarded her name as LDC for special training for blind officials which she completed successfully. She also qualified the typing test held on 21.06.1991. According to the counsel, the applicant was continuously performing her duties as LDC as which is apparent from the leave applications sanctioned by the department itself. Moreover, an identity card was also issued to her wherein she was designated as LDC. Even in 2012 the official correspondence including memo dated 21.12.2012 regarding absence from duty reflected her designation as LDC however, the applicant’s service records contain inconsistent entries showing her designation as LDC at certain places and Hindi Typist at others, despite her appointment being made only to the post of LDC. The applicant alleged that the department suo-motu and in a mala fide manner changed her cadre from LDC to Hindi Typist to deny her promotional benefits. She has continued on the same post for over 27 years without promotion and was not promoted even within the alleged Hindi Typist cadre. The counsel argued that as per Government of India service norms, an employee is ordinarily entitled to at least three promotions during service tenure and the applicant had not received any promotion throughout her entire service. Even though the records of the DPC indicate that the applicant was senior to several officials who were considered and promoted however, she was not promoted without any cogent reason. In fact her juniors were promoted over her in violation of the rules, despite her ACR and vigilance status being clear. Aggrieved, the applicant preferred a representation dated 19.03.2014 challenging promotion of her juniors whic