M. C. D. vs I.C.Sharma
2012 Latest Caselaw 6254 Del

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                             Judgment delivered on: 17.10.2012
        W.P.(C) 6423/2011

M. C. D.                                                        ..... Petitioner

                    versus

I.C.SHARMA                                                     ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner  : Mr Gaurang Kanth.
For the Respondent  : Ms Meenakshi Sharma.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

                               JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

CM 4823/2012

This application on behalf of the respondent for early hearing is

allowed and the matter is being taken up today itself for hearing.

The application stands disposed of.

WP(C) 6423/2011 & CM 12920/2011

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 12.11.2010 in OA

No.969/2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal

Bench, New Delhi.

2. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the

respondent is to be considered for promotion to the post of Store Supervisor

with the MCD. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the post

of Store Supervisor has become redundant inasmuch as garbage disposal has

been outsourced and, therefore, it would not be administratively expedient to

fill up the post of Store Supervisor. The Tribunal has, in a short order, come

to the conclusion that this is not a valid and justifiable reason for not filling

up the post of Store Supervisors and, consequently, has directed the

petitioner to consider the claim of the respondent along with others for

promotion as Store Supervisor within a period of three months.

3. Before us the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the

submissions which were made before the Tribunal that it would not be

administratively expedient to fill the post of Store Supervisors inasmuch as

those posts have become redundant. We were informed by the learned

counsel for the petitioner that there were two sanctioned posts of Store

Supervisors and 16 sanctioned posts of Store Keeper. At present there is no

incumbent for the posts of Store Supervisors and there are only three persons

working as Store Keepers. The learned counsel for the petitioner was unable

to give us a proper answer as to why the post of Store Supervisor was kept

vacant when the same had been sanctioned and had not been abolished. As

noticed in the impugned order, consideration for promotion is a fundamental

right guaranteed to a government servant under Article 16 of the

Constitution. It is not just the financial benefits that a government servant

may be looking for but also the designation and the promotion to the next

higher post. In the present case, the learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the first ACP has been given to the respondent. But that, in

our view, is not enough. Promotion carries with it other facets such as

designation etc. Consequently, we are of the view that the Tribunal's

decision ought not to be interfered with and that the respondent be

considered for promotion to the post of Store Supervisor in accordance with

the applicable rules. The said consideration be completed within two months.

4. The writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid directions. The

pending application also stands disposed of.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J OCTOBER 17, 2012 mk