(made by ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.) Aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 22.3.2011 passed in O.A. No. 571 of 2009, the Union of India has come with the present appeal.
2. The facts leading to filing of the writ appeal are as follows :-
The first respondent joined the All India Radio as Engineering Assistant in December, 1975 and was promoted as Senior Engineer Assistant in 1984 and further promoted as Assistant Engineer in 1989. Thereafter, the first respondent passed AIMETE from the Institute of Electronic and Telecommunication Engineers, New Delhi and got included in the Assistant Engineer eligibility list as on 01.01.2000. Subsequently, by order dated 26.3.2004, 88 Assistant Engineers were promoted to the Junior Time Scale on ad-hoc basis. Thereafter, by order dated 24.4.2007, the first respondent was promoted to the Junior Time Scale Grade of IB(E)S on regular basis. According to the first respondent, though several representations were made to the petitioners for regularization of service, they were not considered by the petitioners. Since no steps were taken, the first respondent had approached the Tribunal by way of O.A.
3. The stand of the Department before the Tribunal was that there had been unavoidable delay in holding the DPC due to pendency in some court proceedings. The Tribunal, considering the contentions raised, in the light of various decisions of the Supreme Court, came to a conclusion that the first respondent has made out a substantive case and allowed the Original Application. The aforesaid order is under challenge in this Writ Petition.
4. Learned Standing Counsel once again reiterated the contentions raised before the Tribunal. The foremost contention is that due to pendency of litigations and Prasar Bharathi attaining autonomous status, the DPC could not be convened and such delay cannot confer any right on the first respondent to claim promotion as the earlier promotion was on ad-hoc basis.
5. From the contentions raised and the materials on record, it is not in dispute that the first respondent has become eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers Junior Time scale on the date of their ad hoc promotion, i.e., 26.3.2004. It is not the case of the petitioners that the respondent was not promoted against a regular post or no substantive post was vacant at the relevant point of time. It is the stand of the petitioners that pendency of litigation and non-convening of DPC had caused the delay in promotion. For the delay caused on the side of the petitioners, the respondent cannot be blamed and he cannot be denied the promotion. It is not disputed that had the DPC been met at the relevant time, the first respondent would have got his promotion. Because of the lethargic attitude of the petitioners, the first respondent applicant had suffered for his promotion. Even going by the averments made by the petitioners, the litigation stated to have been pending has come to a quietus in 2003. Therefore, the petitioners are duty bound to constitute DPC in 2003 itself. Instead, they constituted DPC in 2007 by virtue of which, the delay had occurred and for the non-proper functioning of the petitioners, they have to suffer. On consideration of the above stated facts and circumstances and the decisions of the Supreme Court on this score, the Tribunal has correctly interfered with the matter and allowed the Original Application. Since substantial justice has been rendered, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. It is needless to mention that if the petitioners are aggrieved with the direction to conduct a review DPC, it is for them to approach the Tribunal to get the same corrected in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
gri To The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai 600 104