Parity in promotion cannot be claimed based on irregular benefits to juniors; delay in service claims not condoned without sufficient cause; category corrections upheld without disturbing prior exchanges per policy.

ORDER

Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J):

1. MA No. 734/2018

1.1 The applicant has filed the aforesaid MA for condonatin of delay as a matter of abundant caution in filing the OA No. 3532/2017. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that, by way of the present Original Application, the applicant seeks quashing of the impugned orders dated 12.07.2017, 10.11.2005, 17.02.2009, and 30.04.2010 to the extent they deny him antedated promotion to the rank of Sub-Inspector. The applicant further seeks a direction to the respondents to grant him promotion to the said rank with effect from 11.10.2005, being the date on which he became eligible, or at least from 14.05.2008, i.e., the date on which his juniors were promoted, along with all consequential benefits including seniority, pay, and allowances.

1.2 It is submitted that the applicant has been continuously agitating his grievance before the authorities through various representations dated 17.03.2008, 26.06.2008, 27.08.2013, and 21.10.2015, primarily on the ground that his juniors were drawing higher pay and had been granted earlier promotion. Thereafter, a detailed representation dated 06.04.2017 was submitted specifically seeking antedating of his promotion, which came to be rejected vide order dated 12.07.2017. The present Original Application has been filed within a reasonable time from the said rejection.

1.3 It is further submitted that the applicant’s juniors, namely Shamsher Singh and Balbir Singh, who belong to the same ‘Bawaria’ community, were promoted to the rank of Sub-Inspector with effect from 14.05.2008, despite being junior to the applicant at all relevant stages. Their promotions were granted under the Scheduled Tribe category prior to the clarification dated 13.03.2008, and notably, such promotions have neither been withdrawn nor declared illegal till date.

1.4 The respondents have sought to justify denial of similar benefit to the applicant by terming the promotions of his juniors as erroneous; however, no order of reversion or corrective action has ever been taken. In absence of any such action, the said promotions must be deemed to be conscious and valid administrative decisions, thereby entitling the applicant to claim parity. The continued grant of benefit to the juniors gives rise to a recurring and continuing cause of action in favour of the applicant.

1.5 It is also submitted that the action of the respondents in keeping the applicant’s promotion in abeyance in 2005 on the ground of pending determination of his category, while granting promotion to similarly placed officers even in 2008 under the same category, clearly establishes hostile discrimination. The applicant has been singled out without any reasonable justification.

1.6 The contention of the respondents regarding limitation is misconceived. The applicant has been consistently pursuing his remedies, and the final rejection order dated 12.07.2017 constitutes a fresh cause of action. The delay, if any, is neither intentional nor deliberate but is attributable to the circumstances of the case and the continuous nature of the grievance. Moreover, the issue pertains to seniority, pay, and promotional benefits, which have recurring civil consequences, thereby justifying condonation of delay in the interest of justice.

1.7 In view of the above, it is submitted that the applicant has a strong case on merits and has been subjected to arbitrary and discriminatory treatment. The delay, if any, deserves to be condoned, and the applicant is entitled to the reliefs sought, including antedating of promotion with all co