O.A. 1310/2008, M.A. 1678/2008 & M.A. 1903/2008. Case: 1. B.P. Singh, S/o late Shri SP Singh, 2. K.K. Agarwal, S/o late Shri RL Agarwal Vs 1. Union of India through: The Secretary, New Delhi, 2. Union of India through: The Secretary, New Delhi, 3. Union of India through: CPWD Nirman Bhawan, Delhi, 4. Union of India through: The Chairman, New Delhi, 5. Rajendra Singh, S/o Shri Shiv Raj Singh, 6. Prakash Rawat, S/o late Shri G.P. Rawat, 7. A.K. Das, S/o late Shri K.C. Das, 8. Mathura Prasad, S/o Shri Hari Ram, 9. L. Dung Dung, S/o Sh. Paulus Dung Dung, 10. Parmanand, S/o late Shri Ghisya Ram, 11. Shri P.P. Singh, S/o Shri S.P. Singh, 12. Shri R.K. Kayastha, S/o Shri S.N. Kayastha. Central Administrative Tribunal

Case NumberO.A. 1310/2008, M.A. 1678/2008 & M.A. 1903/2008
CounselFor Appellant: Shri M.K. Bhardwaj and For Respondent: Shri J.B. Mudgil, Ms. Alka Sharma, Shri Sanjay Jain and Mrs. Rekha Pali
JudgesMr. Justice M. Ramachandran, Vice Chairman (J) And Mr. N.D. Dayal, Member (A)
IssueService Law
Judgement DateJanuary 09, 2009
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal

Order:

Honble Mr. Justice M. Ramachandran, Vice Chairman (J), (Principal Bench)

MA 1678/2008 & 1903/2008

  1. For the reasons stated in the aforesaid two Miscellaneous Applications, MAs 1678/2008 & 1903/2008 are allowed.

    O.A.1310/2008

  2. We do not think it might be necessary for us to go to minute details for disposal of this OA, although Mr. Sanjay Jain on behalf of the additional respondents contends that there is suppression of facts as well as laches on the part of the applicants for claiming the reliefs. The applicants are working as Executive Engineers and were appointed as direct recruits AEEs, which is a Class-I post. There is a quota earmarked for promotion to such candidates, the other stream being Assistant Engineers who are already in service. The claim of the applicants is that in spite of their eligibility for being included in the list of seniority, their names did not find a place and necessary instructions are to be issued to the respondents so as to ensure that they get justice and are to be given opportunity to advance their career as law permits.

  3. We may extract the reliefs sought for as hereinbelow:-

    (i) Direct the respondents fix the seniority of the applicants in the grade of Executive Engineer.

    Direct the respondents to revise the seniority list of Executive Engineer (Civil) dated 10/11/2004 in the light of law laid down by this Honble Tribunal in its judgment dated 16/07/2007 in O.A. No.779/2006, O.A. No.1626/2006 & O.A. No. 1349/2006; and may please direct to include the names of all eligible Executive Engineers promoted within the quota from Assistant Executive Engineers (Direct Recruit) on regular basis above all Executive Engineers promoted from Assistant Engineers stream on 03/11/1999.

    Direct the respondents to make regular promotion in the grade of Supdt. Engineer instead of adhoc and give all consequential benefits to the applicants;

    Direct the respondents to pay the cost of litigation to the applicants;

    Pass any other order or direction which this Honble Tribunal thinks fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

  4. According to the applicants, Annexure A-1 order conferred regular promotions to them by order dated 06.07.1999. For instance the first applicant has been promoted and assigned date of regular promotion as 15.07.1997. 2nd applicant has like claims. However, in the seniority list published on 10.11.2004 (Annexure A-4), the names of the applicants are not shown, which can only because...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT