Original Application No. 2377/2010. Case: Abhinandan Singh, Senior Architect (Retd.), Military Engineer Services, Jaipur (Rajasthan) Vs 1. Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, 2. Engineer-in-Chief, Integrated Headquarters of MoD (Army), 3. Secretary, Deptt. of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, 4. Secretary, Union Public Service Commission. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | Original Application No. 2377/2010 |
| Counsel | O. P. Kalshian |
| Judges | V. K. Bali (Chairman) & L. K. Joshi (Vice Chairman), JJ. |
| Issue | Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 |
| Judgement Date | July 29, 2010 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Judgment:
V. K. Bali (Chairman), (Principal Bench New Delhi)
-
Abhinandan Singh, the applicant herein, superannuated on 30.11.2008 while holding the post of Senior Architect, on which post he was promoted on 25.3.1998. DPC for promotion on the post of Chief Architect for the vacancies of the years 2006-07 and 2007-08 was held on 22.8.2008, just about three months prior to retirement of the applicant. However, it is on 9.6.2009 that the panel for promotion on the post of Chief Architect was issued by the respondents against the vacancies of the said years. Vide representation dated 7.7.2009 the applicant sought promotion on the post of Chief Architect, which has since been rejected vide order dated 29.7.2009. It is this order that has been challenged in the present Original Application filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. In consequence of setting aside the order aforesaid, the applicant seeks promotion to the grade of Chief Architect with effect from the date of promotion of his juniors.
-
Having heard the learned counsel representing the applicant and examining the records of the case, we are of the view that no relief can be granted to the applicant. In the impugned order, it has been mentioned that as per FR-22 the financial benefit is applicable only from the date of assuming the higher duties and responsibilities physically, and that since the applicant had superannuated from regular service w.e.f. 30.11.2008, he was not entitled for the same. It is by now a settled proposition of law, and reference in this connection be made to a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Union of India v Rajendra Roy [WP(C) No. 20812/2005 decided on 12.1.2007] followed by us in OA No.1409/2009 and connected matters decided on 22.4.2010 in P. G. George etc. v Union of India & Others, that irrespective of the fact that the vacancies occurred prior to superannuation of an employee, no promotion can be given after retirement unless persons junior to the concerned employee may have been promoted from a date earlier to the retirement of that employee. It was held by us in P. G. George (supra) that there is no rule that promotion should be given from the date of creation of the promotional post, and if promotions are effected prospectively from the date of issue of the order of promotion, retired employees would not be eligible for promotion retrospectively, and further that if promotion is granted retrospectively and a person junior to the retired employee has been promoted...
To continue reading
Request your trial