CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI

O.A. No.4353/2018

Reserved On: 13.12.2018

Pronounced on: 19.12.2018

HON’BLE MR. V. AJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (J)

HON’BLE MR. A.K. BISHNOI, MEMBER (A)

V. Somaiah

Group-C, Age 61,

UGF-02, Bharat Apartment,

Shakti Enclave,

Plot No.10-23, Khasra No.510,

Behind Shalimar Palace, Burari,

Delhi-110084. ……..Applicant

(By Advocate: Shri P. Venkatesan)

Versus

1. Union of India through Secretary,

Ministry of Defence,

DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg,

New Delhi-110011.

2. Defence Research & Development Organisation

Through Director (HRD)

DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg,

New Delhi-110011.

3. Defence Research & Development Organisation

Through Director of Civil

Works & Estates (RD-28),

Defence Research and Develoment Org.

DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg,

New Delhi-110011.

3. Chief Construction Engineer (R&D) Estates,

Chandrayanagutta, Keshavgiri, PO

Hyderabad-500005. ..Respondents

(By Advocate: Shri R.K. Jain)

ORDER

By Hon’ble Mr. V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J)

The applicant, filed the OA seeking the following reliefs:-

2

OA No.4353/2018

“(a)

Allow the present Original Application.

(b)

Direct the respondents to consider the notional

promotion to the applicant as the senior store officer from the

year 2014 or any cut-off date whichever is the vigilance Orders

is binding.

(c )

Pass any other and further order(s) which may be

deemed to be just, fit and proper in favour of the applicant in

the light of the facts and circumstances of the case”.

2. Heard Shri P. Venkatesan, the learned counsel for the

applicant and Shri R.K. Jain, the learned counsel for the

respondents, who appeared on receipt of advance notice and

perused the pleadings on record.

3. In short, the applicant is seeking promotion with effect from

the date on which his alleged junior, Shri K. Paul was promoted to

the post of Store Officer.

4. Earlier, the applicant filed OA No.3445/2015 seeking the same

relief. The said OA was disposed of by this Tribunal on 08.10.2015

as under:-

“The only argument put-forth by learned counsel for applicant

is that the applicant should be given promotion as Store

officer from the date the same has been given to Mr. K. Paul,

his junior. We find from the seniority list, relied upon by the

learned counsel, that Mr. Paul was promoted to feeder post

w.e.f. 15.10.2001 while the applicant was so promoted w.e.f.

1.1.2006 and Mr. Paul is sufficiently senior to the applicant.

The seniority list reads thus:-

Seniority

In list

Name

Sex

Estt

SC/ST

Or N

Date of

birth

Educa

tional

Qualif

icatio

n

Date

of

entry

in

Govt.

service

Date

of

appointme

nt to the

present

grade

Date

of

promoti

on in the

previous

grade

Senior

ity

Date

DPC/SB

Date

Re

ma

rks

if

any

Shri

1. K. Paul

M

CCE

(R&D)

Estates,

Hyd.

N

15.12.58

Inter

11.08.09

15.10.01

02.12.92

15.10.

01 15.10.01

3

OA No.4353/2018

2. V.

Somaiah

M

EMU

Hyd

SC

03.02.56

Inter

05.03.86

01.01.06

11.06.98

14.10.

05 14.10.05

2. Nevertheless, the learned counsel made an attempt to

canvass that since the initial appointment of the applicant as

Store Assistant ‘B’ was made before the appointment of Mr.

Paul, i.e., he was appointed to the post w.e.f. 5.3.1986

whereas Mr. Paul was appointed w.e.f. 11.8.1989, he should

be treated as senior to Mr. Paul.

3. Cause of action to raise such issue accrued to the applicant

about more than two and half decades ago and the

controversy cannot be re-opened at this belated stage. In the

impugned order dated 25.5.2015, the Government of India,

Ministry of Defence has explained that prior to 1992 the

Departmental Promotion Committees were held in the

respective Units. If the applicant had any grievance against

such method, he could have espoused his plea at that point of

time.

4. As has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B