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

Rana Sharma 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:- THE INDIA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999TN1919PTC000911

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:- RANA & CO. PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51109DL1997PTC090894

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. 040/00233 of 2018

    Decided On, 19 July 2018

    At, Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati


    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 financial benefits and regularize the Provident Fund A/c, Group Insurance a/c of applicant.

c. Any other relief(s) that the applicant is entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the instant case as may be deemed 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 assailing his termination from service vide order dated 31.05.2013, the applicant filed OA.319 /2013. This Tribunal, after hearing both the sides, vide order dated 13.02.2015, allowed the OA by directing the respondents to reinstate the applicant forthwith and consider his case for regularization in accordance with law. When the order was not complied with, the applicant filed CP No.040/00031/2015 and pursuant to which applicant was reinstated in service. The respondents assailed the order of this Tribunal in OA.319/2013 before the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court vide WP(C) No.5555/2015. The Hon’ble High Court vide judgment and order dated 16.09.2016 dismissed the said WP(C) by upholding the order of this Tribunal and directed the petitioner (department) to grant all the consequential reliefs within eight weeks from the date ol the said order. The respondent department field SLP (C) NO.38111/2016 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court assailing the judgment and order dated 16.09.2016 of the Hon’ble High Court. The same was also dismissed having found no merit vide order dated 05.01.2017. According to the learned counsel, despite the above positive orders of the Hon’ble Courts, when the services of the applicant was not regularized, the applicant filed CP NO.32/2017 before the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court and during pendency of the same applicant’s services were regularized vide order dated 08.05.2017 and accordingly the CP was closed.

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 more than once. In support of the said contention, applicant annexed a chart depicting promotions to similarly situated employees at Annexure-11. Learned counsel submitted that applicant has submitted representations before the authorities i.e., on 13.04.2017 and 19.09.2017 for grant of all consequential benefits including promotion. 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 superseded him resulting in loss of seniority. 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 representations dated 13.04.2017 and 19.09.2017 are still pending and not disposed of. In view of that and in the interest justice, I direct the respondents, more particularly the respondent nO.2 to consider the representation of the applicant dated 13.04.2017 and 19.09.2017 and consider the case of the applicant for promotion as per their terms of promotion policy keeping in mind the time consumed in the l

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

itigations before the Hon’ble High Court and Supreme Court filed 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 as to costs.