Delhi High Court
S.Narayanaswamy vs Union Of India & Ors. on 19 September, 2012
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 19.09.2012
W.P.(C) 4699/2012
S.NARAYANASWAMY ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr T.D.Yadav.
For the Respondents : Mr Sumeet Pushkarna with Mr Varun Dubey.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 25.04.2011 and
30.05.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench,
New Delhi in O.A. No.3820/2010 and R.A. No.158/2011 respectively.
2. Without going into the details of the matter we may straightaway point
out that the petitioner had sought parity with the case of P.G.George vs.
Union of India & Ors. (O.A. No.1409/2009) decided on 22.04.2010 by a co-
ordinate bench of the Tribunal. Along with the said case of P.G.George
(supra) seven other OAs of similarly placed individuals had also been
decided by the said order dated 22.04.2010. The only question that was
raised in those matters was as under:
"2. The question before us for consideration is whether the
retired employees of the Government would be eligible for
notional promotion retrospectively, if the meeting of
Departmental Promotion Committee, held after their retirement,
considers them fit for promotion and persons junior to them in
service are promoted retrospectively from the dates, when such
retired employees were in service."
3. After considering the merits of the matter, the Tribunal in
P.G.George's case allowed all the said OAs and directed as under:-
"In the result, the OAs are allowed. The Respondents are
directed to grant notional promotion to the Applicants from the
date their immediate juniors were promoted in various Select
Lists of the years 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006. The promotion
would be notional but it would count towards increments and
consequently in recalculation of post-retirement dues. The
Respondents would recalculate the dues and make these over to
the Applicants as expeditiously as possible but not later than
15.06.2010. There will be no order as to costs."
4. It is also an admitted case that the respondent herein had taken the
matter further and filed a writ petition in respect of the decision in
P.G.George's case. That writ petition was also dismissed by a Division
Bench of this court on 23.07.2010. Subsequent thereto the orders passed by
the Tribunal in P.G.George's case were implemented by virtue of OM dated
03.08.2010. Similar OMs of the same date were issued in the matter
connected with P.G.George (supra).
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and it appears to us
that the case of the petitioner is no different from the case of P.G.George
(supra) which was dealt with by the Tribunal by virtue of the order dated
22.04.2010. The learned counsel for the respondent has been unable to
distinguish the case of the petitioner from that of P.G.George (supra).
Consequently, the observations of the Tribunal to the contrary cannot be
accepted. According to us the Tribunal ought to have followed the decision
of a co-ordinate bench and ought to have allowed the OA filed by the
petitioner inasmuch as the case of the petitioner is not any different from that
of P.G.George (supra). The said OM dated 03.08.2010 in P.G.George's
case contains the following directions with regard to implementation:-
"3. The Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas are
therefore hereby requested to implement the order of the CAT in
respect of Shri P.G. George w.e.f. 1st July of 2007 by fixing of
his pay notionally and granting notional increments if any due
till his retirement and also granting pensionary benefits
immediately under intimation to this Department ........"
6. Consequently, it is directed that the petitioner's pay be fixed
notionally and he be granted notional increments, if any, due till his
retirement and he be also granted pensionary benefits in accord with the
directions given in P.G.George's case. We make it clear that the petitioner
would be notionally promoted to the post of Deputy Secretary w.e.f.
01.07.2005. The writ petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. There
shall be no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
SEPTEMBER 19, 2012
mk
