CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH O.A. No.60/1495/2017 Chandigarh, this the 3rd day of December, 2025 HON’BLE MR. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J)

HON’BLE MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)

Gurbachan Singh, Chief Enforcement Officer (Retd.) son of Shri Budh Ram, age of 62 years resident of 140, Urban Estate-I, Jalandhar.

(Group-'B'). …Applicant (BY ADVOCATE: R. S. Dadwal)

VERSUS Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi..

...Respondents (BY ADVOCATE: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC)

O R D E R (Oral)

Per: RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J):

1. The applicant has approached this Tribunal by way of instant O.A, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, seeking the following relief:

“i) Record of the case be called.

ii) Order dated 22.05.2017 (Annexure A-1) vide which representation of the applicant dated 22.07.2013 to recall the order dated 15.05.2007 in the light of judgment dated 13.03.2013 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in CWP 21686 of 2011 be quashed and the respondent be directed to open the sealed cover and in case the applicant is found selected, he be promoted w.e.f. the date his juniors were promoted vide Annexure A-3 with all consequential benefits including interest @ 18% on the arrears.

iii) Letter No.F.No.4/17/2007-Ad.ED dated 26.11.2008 (Annexure A-2) be quashed whereby the request of the applicant for promotion as Assistant Director from the date it was given to his Juniors w.e.f. 25.07.2006 vide Annexure A-3 in the pay scale of Rs.10000-15200 has been rejected.

iv) That as a result of promotion of the applicant as Assistant Director w.e.f. 26.07.2006 in the scale of Rs.10000-15200 he be further held entitled for all consequential benefits including revised retiral benefits i.e. difference in arrears of pension, difference in arrears of pay fixation, different in arrears of DCRG and difference in arrears of leave encashment.

v) That applicant be future held entitled to interest on his consequential dues w.e.f. 26.07.2006 and on pensionary benefits from 01.01.2007.

vi) That this Hon'ble Tribunal may also pass any other order for the grant of relief to the applicant, which it may deem fit in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

vii) The cost of the application may also be awarded in favour of the applicant.”

2. Brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant are that he joined the respondent department as a Clerk in the year 1971 and, during the course of his service, earned successive promotions to the posts of Office Assistant, Enforcement Officer and ultimately Chief Enforcement Officer. It is asserted that all promotions were granted from the due dates and at no stage was the applicant superseded, nor was any adverse material ever communicated to him. The applicant ultimately retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2006 while holding the post of Chief Enforcement Officer.

3. It is contended that the next channel of promotion from the post of Chief Enforcement Officer is to the post of Assistant Director, which is a Class-I post, to be filled 50% by promotion and 50% by transfer on deputation, through a process of selection in accordance with the Recruitment Rules. As per the Recruitment Rules (Annexure A-4), a Chief Enforcement Officer with five years’ regular service in the grade is eligible for consideration. Since the applicant was promoted as Chief Enforcement Officer in 1992, he became eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Director in the year 1997.

4. The applicant submits that while he was in service, he was served with two charge sheets under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The first charge sheet was issued on 30.07.2003, alleging that the applicant had issued a letter dated 11.11.1998 permitting continuation of a daily-wage Stenographer, even after the regular incumbent had joined duties. Thereafter an inquiry was conducted, but despite absence of cogent evidence, the