w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Dhrubajyoti Deka v/s The Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary, Department of Information Technology, New Delhi & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LTD [Active] CIN = U74140DL1992PLC048211

Company & Directors' Information:- D & H INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = L28900MH1985PLC035822

Company & Directors' Information:- THE INDIA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999TN1919PTC000911

Company & Directors' Information:- S R DEKA AND CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U15319AS1987PTC002678

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65990MH1941PTC003461

Company & Directors' Information:- C H C INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200WB2001PLC093126

Company & Directors' Information:- V R INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900MH2000PTC128632

Company & Directors' Information:- K. K. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200OR2009PTC011100

Company & Directors' Information:- S A I S INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72100TN2010PTC075284

Company & Directors' Information:- S H INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200DL2005PTC135610

    Original Application No. 040/00234 of 2018

    Decided On, 19 July 2018

    At, Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati

    By, THE HONOURABLE MRS. MANJULA DAS
    By, JUDICIAL MEMBER

    For the Applicant: P. Mahanta, R.B. Gohain, Advocates. For the Respondents: ----



Judgment Text

Oral Order:

1. By this O.A., filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant is seeking following relief(s}:-

'a. Promote the applicant retrospectively for which he was entitled as per the Promotion Policy of the respondents and release all benefits of promotion including pay retrospectively.

b. Release the regular benefits of applicant as per the chart appended as ANNEXURE-A11.

c. Any other relief(s} that the Applicant is entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the instant case as may be seemed fit and proper by this Hon’ble Tribunal.'

2. Mr.P.Mahanta, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities in not considering the applicant for promotion to the higher grades as per the promotion policy of the respondents. The said promotion policy is based on the scheme of 'Person Oriented Promotion' and as per such scheme promotion is not dependent on arising of vacancies in the higher post According to the learned counsel, to get considered for promotion under the scheme, an employee. must complete the 'minimum residency period' attached to the post and on such completion, he/she shall be promoted if the employee has the requisite percentage of ACR gradings. If the employee does not fulfill the requisite ACR grading, he/she shall be considered for the next year with a reduced percentage of ACR gradings and so on. As such, promotion under the 'Person Oriented Promotion' is a matter of right subject to fulfilling the requisite residency period and ACR grading attached to the post.

3. Learned counsel further submitted that applicant had joined the department on 09.06.1998 and is the oldest employee of the department. During the last 20 years he was promoted only once to the higher scale of Office Assistant (E&A) in the pay scale of Rs.4000-100-6000/-. According to the learned counsel, applicant was arbitrarily terminated from service vide order 28.11.2014 after almost 16 years. Assailing his termination from service, the applicant filed OA.403/2014. This Tribunal, initially stated the termination order and thereafter hearing both the sides, vide order dated 06.06.2016, set aside the termination order dated 28.11.2014 and allowed the OA. The WP(C) no.3123/2017 so filed by the department assailing the order of this Tribunal was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court vide judgment and order dated 24.07.2017. The review petition No.34/2018 filed by the department was also dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 06.04.2018.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that pursuant to termination of his service, the applicant was illegally deprived of his due promotion whereas other similarly situated employees and even juniors were promoted three times. In support of the said contention, applicant annexed a chart depicting promotions to similarly situated employees at Annexure-A 14. Learned counsel submitted that applicant has submitted representation before the authorities on 12.10.2017 for retrospective promotion with all consequential benefits. According to the learned counsel, notwithstanding the clear and unambiguous terms and conditions of the promotion scheme, the applicant has not been considered for promotion whereas his junior colleagues in the meantime have been promoted. Learned counsel accordingly prayed that the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the applicant for promotion strictly in terms of promotion policy.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant, perused the OA and the documents annexed herewith. It is noted that the representation dated 12.10.2017 is still pending and not disposed of. In view of that and in the interest justice, I direct the respondents to consider the representation of the applicant dated 12.10.2017 and consider the case of the applicant for promotion as per their terms of promotion policy keeping in mind the time consumed in the litigations before the Hon’ble High Court and Supreme Court filed

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

by the respondents themselves (which were dismissed) for the purpose of counting 'minimum residency period' for such promotion. The exercise shall be carried out as expeditiously as possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of this order. The decisions to be arrived at shall be communicated to the applicant forthwith. 6. OA is disposed of accordingly at the admission stage itself. There shall be no order os to costs.
O R