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

Rawish Kumar v/s Union of India through the Secretary, Having it's office at Ministry of Urban Development, New Delhi & Others

Company & Directors' Information:- KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101PN1993PTC072139

Company & Directors' Information:- URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400MH2011PTC300616

Company & Directors' Information:- URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400WB2011PTC166069

Company & Directors' Information:- URBAN NEW PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999TG2020PTC140084

Company & Directors' Information:- R K URBAN DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400MH2011PTC223591

Company & Directors' Information:- AMP URBAN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400WB2011PTC164960

Company & Directors' Information:- A. B. URBAN DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70100MH2015PTC267677

    Original Application No. 040/00298 of 2017

    Decided On, 23 January 2020

    At, Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati


    For the Applicant: Kankan Das, Advocate. For the Respondents: S.K. Ghosh, Addl. CGSC., A. Thakur, Advocate.

Judgment Text

Nekkhomang Neihsial, Member (A).

1. In this O.A., the applicant is asking the following reliefs:-

“8(A) To setting aside and quash the impugned Promotion office order no. 1270/2017 issued on 1.10.2017 by the Chief General Manager (HRM) in regard of promotion order in the cadre of Dy. Manager (Fin) to Manager (Fin) in the pay scale of Rs. 24,900-50,500 (IDA).;

(B) To set aside and quash the Inter-seniority list published on 2.10.2017.

(c) To direct the respondent authorities to hold a review DPC for consideration of the case of the applicant in regard of promotion in the cadre of Dy. Manager (Fin) to Manager (Fin) in the pay scale of Rs. 24,900-50,500 (IDA) effect from 1.10.2017 with all consequential benefit.

(d) To direct the respondent authorities to pass an order to modify the inter seniority list published on 2.10.2017 and re-fix the seniority position of the applicant.

(e) To direct DPC to treated applicant’s APARs the financial years 2015-2016 is graded ‘A’.

(f) Pass any such further order or direction as deemed fit proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The respondent authorities filed their written statement on 30.05.2018 wherein among others, they have contested that –

“Sh. Jaipal Singla holds B. Com qualification and he was last promoted on 01-04-2010. He became eligible for consideration for promotion under Graduate category and in the DPC for the year 2016-17 after completing 07 years of period. Further regarding consideration of candidature of Sh. J. S. Gupta, Sh. M.L. Kanojia and Sh. P.K. Jain for promotion to the post of Manager (Fin), it is submitted that the qualification acquired by these employees were considered and categorized as per the earlier incentive scheme of the company which was started in the year 2000. Further in terms of the promotion policy of the company the employee under professional category for promotion from DM (F) to Mgr. (Fin) requires completion of minimum eligibility period of 3 years as on 30th September.

Further in the matter it is stated that Sh. J.S. Gupta was last promoted on 01-04-2012, and Sh. M.L. Kanojia and Sh. P.K. Jain were promoted on 01-10- 2014. All the three employees after completing 03 years eligibility period were eligible for consideration of promotion in the DPC for the year 2016-17 whereas Applicant with last promotion date as 01-04-2012 and categorized as Graduate requires completion of 7 years of eligibility period and was ineligible for consideration for promotion in the DPC for the year 2016-17.”

3. Heard Sri K. Das, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri A. Thakur, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the pleadings and all the documents annexed with the O.A.

4. It is observed from the records that in another O.A. No. 040/00289/2017, the applicant was asking the following reliefs:-

“8(a) Setting aside and quash the impugned order dated 22.04.2014 issued by the General Manager vide Memo No HRM/PMS/AHQ/2014/1771 (Annexure A - 15).

(b) Setting aside and quash the impugned order dated 30.05.2016 vide office order No 572/2016 issued by Dy General Manager (HRM) in respect of the applicant (Annexure A - 21).

(c) Setting aside and quash the impugned order dated 16.12.2016 issued by the Dy General Manager vide office memo No. 38 (3349)/Estt.4517 (Annexure A - 24).

(d) Direct to the respondent to up gradation of Educational qualification MBA (Finance and Banking) to the applicant in the corporation record and grant two advance increment w.e.f. 27.12.2012 (From the date of first information) (Annexure A - 7).

(e) Direct to the respondent to release total arrear of two advance increment w.e.f. 27.12.2012 along –with grant interest @ 12% per annum till payment to the applicant.”

5. The O.A. has been examined, considered and judgment delivered by this Tribunal in the aforesaid O.A. on 09.08.2018 with the following observation and direction:-

“18. It is also noted that applicant filed another detailed representation on 23.02.2016 and requested to the authority for updating his educational qualification in the Corporation Record and grant increments w.e.f. 20.12.2012. However, all the representations dated 27.12.2012, 11.07.2013, 11.09.2013, 13.11.2013, 10.04.2014, 06.05.2014, 27.05.2014, 15.10.2014, 23.02.2016 and 20.06.2016 are still pending before the Corporation i.e. respondent authority.

20. In view of the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, this court has come into finding that let the department decide the present issue in accordance with law after examining the case of the applicant. Accordingly, we direct the respondent authority to make verification and examination into the case as to whether the applicant is similarly situated with the individuals namely Bhanwar Singh AGM(Engg), R D Sharma DGM (Engg), Vikas Kumar AM-Law, G Satyanarayana AM (Fin) and Ashok Kapoor DM (Fin) and if he is found similarly situated, similar benefits to be granted.

21. The entire exercise shall be carried out by the respondent authorities within a period of four months from the date of receipt copy of this order.”

6. From the above, it is observed that the reliefs sought under

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

these two O.A.s i.e. O.A. No. 289 of 2017 and O.A. No. 298 of 2017 are intimately connected. If the applicant is treated as professional with a degree of MBA (Finance & Banking), he would be entitled to grant of two advance increments and put in a different category. Whether this relief has been granted to the applicant in O.A. No. 040/00289/2017 is not known or brought to the notice of this Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the present O.A. is found to be premature and liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed. No order as to costs.