Original Application Number. 1056 of 2010. Case: Devendra Singh Negi Vs Union of India. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | Original Application Number. 1056 of 2010 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Vikash Budhwar, Advocate and For Respondents: N.P. Shukla, Advocate |
| Judges | Shashi Prakash, Member (A) and Dr. Murtaza Ali, Member (J) |
| Issue | Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 |
| Judgement Date | July 07, 2014 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Order:
Shashi Prakash, Member (A), (Allahabad Bench)
-
By way of the instant Original Application filed under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, the applicant seeks following reliefs: -
i. to correct the seniority position of the applicant list dated 15.1.2010, 3-2.2010 and 29-6-2010 as per seniority position placed in the seniority list dated 11-7-03.
i-a. to set aside the order dated 15.1.2010 Annexure No. 7 in so far as it pertains to the applicant while placing the name in the review DPC and granting promotion to the applicant on the post of Income Tax Inspector w.e.f. 19.7.2006 against the recruitment year 2004-05.
i-b. issue an order or direction commanding the respondents to interpolate the name of the applicant in the gradation list dated 11.07.2003 as of 19.07.2003 over and above the respondent no. 4 while placing his name below Shri Chhedi Lal, whose name is at serial no. 300 and above respondent no. 4 whose name is at serial no. 301.
i.c. issue an order or direction commanding the respondents to grant all consequential benefits attached thereto treating the applicant to be senior to respondent no. 4.
ii. to issue order or direction directing the respondent no. 2 to decide the representation dated 5-4-2010 filed by the applicant within stipulated period.
iii. issue order or direction commanding the respondent no. 2 not to hold any review D.P.C unless the seniority position of the applicant is corrected.
-
As per the O.A, the facts of the case, in brief, are that initially the applicant, who is physically handicapped, was appointed as Stenographer Grade-D at Aligarh vide appointment letter dated 21.08.1991. Later on he was transferred to Bareilly. In the gradation list published on 28.04.1994 the name of the applicant was shown at Sl. No. 108 whereas the name of respondent no. 4, who also belongs to physically handicapped category, was shown at Sl. No. 107 despite the fact that he was junior to the applicant by virtue of his joining the duty on 22.02.1993. For the above reasons, the respondent no. 4 was given promotion to the post of Steno Grade-II prior to the applicant as he was promoted as Steno Grade-II in the year 2001. The respondent no. 2 issued a letter dated 10.11.2000 regarding promotion to the post of Income Tax Inspector to all concerned asking 5 years character roll and vigilance clearance. In the said letter the name of the applicant was shown at Sl. No. 2 as physically handicapped candidate whereas the name of Gulshan Chaudhary and Gupta Nath Pandey, who were also physically handicapped candidate, was shown at Sl. No. 1 and 30...
To continue reading
Request your trial