Back
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
New Delhi
OA No.2440/2015
This the 20th day of December, 2018
Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman
Hon’ble Mr. K. N. Shrivastava, Member (A)
Durgadas Datta, aged about 67 years,
Scientist F (Retd), S/o late S. K. Datta,
R/o C-23, Tarang Apartments,
19, I.P. Extension, Patparganj, Delhi-110092
Retired from National Informatics Centre,
A-Block, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003.
… Applicant
( By Mr. R. K. Kapoor, Advocate )
Versus
1. Union of India through
Ministry of Information and Technology,
through its Secretary,
A-Block, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003.
2. The Joint Director (Personnel),
National Informatics Centre,
A-Block, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
… Respondents
( By Ms. Sumedha Sharma, Advocate )
O R D E R
Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman :
The applicant joined the National Informatics Centre, the
2nd respondent herein, as Scientist-C on 01.03.1979. He was
OA-2440/2015
2
promoted as Scientist-D on 01.01.1984, as Scientist-E on
01.01.1988, and as Scientist-F on 01.07.1993. He became eligible
to be considered for promotion as Scientist-G on completion of
five years of service, subject to his fulfilling the stipulated
conditions. He was interviewed between 1999 and 2008, almost
every year, in the context of promotion to the grade of Scientist-
G. However, he was not promoted, and ultimately, he retired
from service on 31.10.2008. This OA is filed with a prayer to
direct the respondents to grant in situ promotion from Scientist-
F to Scientist-G under the Flexible Complementing Scheme
(FCS) on completion of the required length of service, i.e., w.e.f.
01.07.1998, and to confer upon him all the consequential
benefits. He has also prayed for grant of damages to
compensate the financial loss, frustration, mental agony and
loss of reputation.
2. The applicant contends that he had a brilliant career
throughout, and at every stage he has been extended the benefit
of in situ promotion, but at the final stage, the promotion to
Scientist-G on in situ basis was denied to him on arbitrary and
untenable grounds.
OA-2440/2015
3
3. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed by the
respondents. It is stated that the post of Scientist-G is a very
senior position, and in situ promotion to that post is only on the
basis of evaluation as prescribed under the relevant rules.
According to them, there exist three stages in deciding the
fitness for promotion, namely, verification by the Screening
Committee; interview by a Board; and, clearance of the
recommendation by the High Level Peer Review Committee. It
is also stated that in case the candidate is cleared at all the
stages,
the
recommendations
are
submitted
to
the
Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC). The
respondents stated that the case of the applicant was
considered on number of occasions, but he was not found fit for
promotion in the process. According to them, once the
applicant has retired from service, the question of considering
his case for promotion does not arise.
4. We heard Shri R. K. Kapoor, learned counsel for the
applicant, and Ms. Sumedha Sharma, learned counsel for the
respondents.
5. The upward movement of the applicant in his
career up to the level of Scientist-F, was smooth and without
OA-2440/2015
4
any hindrance. For in situ promotion to the post of Scientist-G,
five years of residency in Scientist-F is essential. The Rules in
this regard were framed in the year 1998, and notified on
09.11.1998. Apart from confidential reports, the other
accomplishments of the Scientists become relevant, particularly
for promotion to the higher positions. The importance given to
merit is evident from the fact that if a candidate is found to be
exceptionally meritorious, with all ‘outstanding’ gradings, the
Rules provide for relaxation in the residency period also, up to
