Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 32069 of 2015 Petitioner :- Union Of India Thru' General Manager And Another Respondent :- Heera Lal And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Mathur,S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.,S.M. Ali Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
1. Heard Sri Prashant Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.M. Ali, learned counsel for respondent no. 1.
2. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition against the order dated 20th February 2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad allowing the Original Application No. 941 of 2009 (Heera Lal Vs. Union of India and another). The Tribunal by the impugned order has issued a direction for promotion of respondent no. 1 from the date his junior Bacchu Khan was promoted and to grant all consequential reliefs including pensionery benefits to him within a specified period.
3. Bacchu Khan was initially recruited on the post of Ladderman and with the passage of time was promoted to the post of Technician Grade-I. In the year 1993 he was granted promotion to the post of Master Craftsman (in short MCM) in preference to the respondent no. 1.
4. The protest petition of respondent no. 1 against the aforesaid promotion was rejected. Therefore, in the year 2005 he preferred Original Application No. 1056 of 2005 challenging the order dated 27.5.2005 by which promotion to him was refused and his petition was rejected.
5. The aforesaid order was quashed by the Tribunal vide order dated 21.1.2009 and the petitioners were directed to pass a speaking and reasoned order on the representation of the petitioner.
6. In pursuance to the above, the representation of the respondent no. 1 seeking promotion to the post of MCM with effect from the date Bacchu Khan junior to him was promoted was rejected vide order dated 15.4.2009. Thus, respondent no. 1 preferred the present Original application.
7. The tribunal on the basis of the material produced by the respective parties came to the conclusion that Bacchu Khan was junior to respondent no. 1. He was given promotion prior to respondent no. 1 drawing adverse interference against the petitioners due to non production of PNM decision dated 4.4.1990 which forms the basis of granting promotion to Bacchu Khan. Thus, respondent no. 1 has been held entitle to promotion.
8. The only argument advanced by Sri Prashant Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the tribunal has factually erred in holding that Bacchu Khan is junior to respondent no. 1. In fact, Bacchu Khan was promoted as Technician Grade-I on 1.1.1984 whereas respondent no. 1 was promoted on 1.3.1993 and as such was much senior to the petitioner.
9. It is not disputed that Bacchu Khan was granted promotions to the posts of Technician Grade-III, Technician Grade-II and Technician Grade-I on the basis of the PNM decision dated 4.4.1990 which finds mention in the service record but the said PNM decision was never produced by the petitioners at any stage. Accordingly, an adverse inference was drawn that no such order exists and that Bacchu Khan who was junior to respondent no. 1 as helper Khalasi is continues to be junior. Since he was promoted as MCM on 1.1.1993, respondent no. 1 is also entitle to the same promotion and all consequential benefits therein w.e.f. 1.1.1993.
10. We find no error or illegality in the aforesaid finding of the tribunal.
11. Sri Mathur relying upon B.S. Bajwa and another Vs. State of Punjab and others 1998 (2) SCC 523 submits that the seniority of the employees is not liable to be disturbed at the fag end of the career.
12. Here in this present matter, it is not the question of disturbance of the seniority of the employees rather it is a question of promotion, as person junior to respondent no. 1 have been promoted.
13. The finding of the tribunal is that Bacchu Khan was junior to the respondent no. 1 and was promoted w.e.f. 1.1.1993 as MCM. Therefore, petitioner is also entitle to the same promotion.
14. In view of the above, the aforesaid authority is of no help to the petitioners.
15. The petitioners have failed to produce order dated 4.4.1990 even before this Court. In such situation, we find no error or illegality on part of the tribunal in allowing the Original Application filed by respondent no. 1.
16. The writ petition as such lacks merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.3.2018 SKS