Delhi High Court
Jai Bhagwan & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr on 31 August, 2022
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 31.08.2022
+ W.P.(C) 5446/2016 & C.M. No. 2000/2021
JAI BHAGWAN & ORS ..... Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjiv Joshi, Advocate (through VC).
For the Respondent: Mr. Prasanta Verma, Sr. Central Govt. Counsel with Mr
Hiteshi Kakkar and Mr Amrit Singh, Advocates.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioners impugn judgment dated 15.02.2016 whereby the
Original Applications filed by the petitioners before the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (in short 'the
Tribunal') have been dismissed holding that promotion of a retired
officer cannot be effective from a date after his retirement.
2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the stand of the
respondent before the Tribunal was that the juniors of the petitioners
were promoted by promotion order dated 23.10.2012 which is after the
date of the superannuation of the petitioners and as such they were not
Signature Not Verified
Digital Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:03.09.2022 12:34:59
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
entitled to any promotion.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner Nos.1
& 2 superannuated on 31.12.2009 and petitioner No.3 superannuated
on 30.11.2010. He submits that though a promotion order has been
issued on 23.10.2012, however the respondents have given
retrospective promotion to the juniors of the petitioners w.e.f
01.04.2009 and 01.04.2010 respectively for petitioner Nos.1 & 2 and
petitioner No.3.
4. He submits that this final seniority list which was circulated on
01.12.2015 was not placed by the respondents before the Tribunal and
petitioners became aware of the list subsequently. He submits that the
final seniority list dated 01.12.2015 categorically reckons the date of
the appointment and reckoning of approved service of the juniors of
the petitioners as 01.04.2009 and 01.04.2010 respectively. He submits
that since the service of the juniors of the petitioners is being reckoned
from a date prior to the superannuation of petitioners, petitioners are
entitled to the notional benefits w.e.f the said date.
5. The final seniority list dated 01.12.2015 has been placed on
record along with an additional affidavit filed by the petitioners. In the
written synopsis filed by the respondents this list is not disputed.
However, it is contended that the date of reckoning is for a separate
purpose and not for grant of any benefits.
6. As per the written submission of the respondents is that
Signature Not Verified
Digital Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:03.09.2022 12:34:59
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
petitioner Nos.1 & 2 were eligible to be considered for promotion as
Deputy Director for the panel year 2009-2010 and petitioner No.3
became eligible for the same panel year for the year 2010-2011.
However, before the select list could be effected petitioners had
superannuated from service.
7. We may notice that this list was not placed before the Tribunal
nor was any material placed before the Tribunal that the juniors of the
petitioners were given retrospective appointment to the post of Deputy
Director or their service was reckoned from a retrospective date i.e. a
date prior to the superannuation of the petitioners. The effect of the list
dated 01.12.2015 in our view is liable to be considered by the
Tribunal.
8. Since the order of the Tribunal is only based on the promotion
order dated 18.10.2012 which was passed after the superannuation of
the petitioners and the material with regard to the final seniority list
dated 01.12.2015 was neither placed before the Tribunal nor
considered by the Tribunal, we are of the view that the impugned
order is liable to be set aside and the matter remitted to the Tribunal
giving an opportunity to the parties to place material on record before
the Tribunal with regard to the alleged retrospective appointment
being given to the juniors of the petitioners.
9. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 15.02.2016 is
set aside. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh
Signature Not Verified
Digital Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:03.09.2022 12:34:59
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
consideration. Petitioners are granted four weeks time to place
additional material before the Tribunal. Respondents shall also
respond to the said material within four weeks thereafter. The tribunal
is directed to expeditiously consider the case and pass a final order
preferably within a period of six months.
10. Parties shall appear before the Tribunal for directions on
11.10.2022.
11. Petition is allowed. All rights and contentions of parties are
reserved.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
AUGUST 31, 2022
rk
Signature Not Verified
Digital Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:03.09.2022 12:34:59
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
