O.A. No. 1116/CH/2012. Case: Dr. Virendra Singh Vs Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research and Director, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | O.A. No. 1116/CH/2012 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Sukant Gupta and For Respondents: Mr. D.R. Sharma |
| Judges | Sanjeev Kaushik, Member (J) and Rajwant Sandhu, Member (A) |
| Issue | Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 21 |
| Judgement Date | April 25, 2014 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Order:
Sanjeev Kaushik, Member (J), (Chandigarh Bench)
-
By way of the present O.A., the applicant, who is presently working as Professor in the department of Hepatology at Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (hereinafter referred to as PGI) Chandigarh, has impugned the order dated 08/09.08.1997 whereby his request for promotion to the post of Associate Professor had been rejected. He has also sought quashing of orders dated 24.04.2006 and 12.05.2012 whereby his representations for promotion from due date were rejected. He has sought issuance of a direction to the respondents to promote him to the post of Associate Professor from 01.07.1997, and thereafter to revise his seniority and grant him consequential benefits.
-
The facts which led to the filing of the present O.A. are that initially the applicant joined the PGIMER, Chandigarh as an Assistant Professor, on regular basis, in the year 1992. He became eligible for next promotion in the hierarchy w.e.f. 01.07.1997. His case was considered by the Selection Committee on 8/9.08.1997. He was found not suitable and therefore his case for promotion was rejected. Subsequently, he was considered and promoted as Associate Professor on 01.07.1999 and then as Additional Professor on 01.07.2003 and ultimately as Professor on 01.07.2008.
-
It is the case of the applicant that in the year 2005, the persons junior to him were promoted, as a result of review, following which the he made a representation to the respondents to consider his case also for promotion to the post of Associate Professor from due date i.e. 01.07.1997. One such representation was made on 11.04.1992 (Annexure A-1) which was followed by various representations (Annexure A-2-Colly). The request of the applicant for review was declined vide order dated 24.04.2006 and 12.05.2012. The applicant is stated to have made another representation on 13.06.2012 and 21.06.2012 when he came to know that the Governing Body has taken a decision in their meeting held on 28.04.2012 to consider and review the left-out cases and finding no response, he filed the instant O.A.
-
Pursuant to notice, the respondents resisted the claim of the applicant by filing a detailed written statement wherein they have stated that the applicant is seeking review of the decision granting him promotion as Associate Professor, which event had taken place as far back as on 01.07.1999, by filing the present O.A. in the year 2012, which his hugely barred by time. It is submitted that the case of the applicant...
To continue reading
Request your trial