AT NAINITAL v. Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Mohd

Principal Bench, New Delhi, in O.A. No. 3478 of 2015, Sri V.V. Krishna Sarma vs. Union of India and Others, which was allowed by the order dated 21.07.2023. The respondents thereafter challenged the said order before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 2995 of 2024, Union of India and Another vs. V.V. Krishna Sarma, which was dismissed, subject to a cost of ₹50,000/-.

8. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that a number of similarly situated employees, in respect of whom promotion orders were passed with retrospective effect, have been granted the benefit of such orders, whereas the petitioner has been excluded without any reason. It is submitted that there exists no factual or legal 4 impediment in extending the benefit of the order dated

29.04.2011, by which promotion was given

01.09.2007, to the petitioner as well. Denial of such benefit to the petitioner amounts to denial of equality and discrimination without any rational basis.

9. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that the Tribunal, while rejecting the petitioner’s claim, relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nirmal Chandra Sinha Vs. Union of India and Others (2008) 14 SCC 29. However, it is submitted that the said judgment was cited by the respondent in the application filed by Sri V.V. Krishna Sarma (Supra) before the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, in O.A. No. 3478 of

2015. The claim of Sri V.V. Krishna Sarma was allowed by the Tribunal and it was subsequently affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.

10. Learned senior counsel submits that pursuant to the order dated 29.04.2011, approximately 700 similarly situated persons, except the petitioner, have been granted promotion with retrospective effect, whereas the petitioner has been denied the same benefit without any justification.

11. Learned counsel for respondent would submit that promotion is not a vested right.

12. It is positive case of the petitioner that on

29.04.2011, an order was passed by which, the petitioner was given promotion w.e.f. 01.09.2007. In fact, this order has been filed by the petitioner along with rejoinder 5 affidavit. It speaks as hereunder:- “Order In partial modification of orders of even number dated 15.05.2009 and 11.08.2009, the date of promotion made to the grade of Assistant Director from the grade of Manager/Producer is revised as under:- Sl. No

6. Name Date which promoted earlier Shri C.P.S. Munda

10.06.2009 Retrospective promoted 01.08.2006 Dr. Santosh Ashish

22.05.2009

01.09.2007 Shri Baljit Singh

27.05.2009

01.11.2007 Shri Mukhesh Sharma Smt. Chitra Sharma

02.09.2009

01.04.2008

31.08.2009

01.09.2008 Dr. N.N. Jha

03.09.2009

01.03.2009 The above mentioned officers are entitled for all consequential 2. benefits. This is in conformity with the orders of the Hon’ble CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No. 1074/2006, 1899/2006 and 396/2010 which were complied with in the case of the concerned Applicants in the case. Shri C.P.S. Munda is however, not entitled for revision of fixation of pay as he was granted 1st Financial Upgradation under the ACP Scheme. 3. This issues with the approval of competent authority.”

13. It is the petitioner’s positive case that Sri V.V. Krishna Sarma was also granted the benefit of promotion with retrospective effect, and when the same was not implemented, he was constrained to file an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, which was allowed on 21.07.2023. A copy of the order was produced by learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of the hearing. It is submitted that the Tribunal accepted the claim of Sri V.V. Krishna Sarma. The order dated 21.07.2023 passed by the Tribunal was subsequently challenged by the respondents before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, which dismissed the challenge by its judgment dated 28.02.2024 passed in W.P. (C) No.2995 of 2024. 6

14. Perusal of the order dated 28.02.2024 passed in W.P. (C) No. 2995 of 2024 makes it abundantly clear that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has not only dismissed the petition, but has also imposed a cost of ₹50,000/- on the respondents. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said judgment are relevant, and the same are extracted hereunder: “6. Once it is not denied that the respondent was similarly placed as the employees mentioned in the order dated 29.04.2011, there was no justification on the part of the petitioner in refusing to extend the benefit of the said order to the respondent. This conduct of the petitioner needs to be deprecated. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioners have, without any justifiable basis, dragged the respondent into litigation for the last 13 years. In the light of the aforesaid, we dismiss the petition by enhancing the costs payable by the petitioner in terms of the impugned order to Rs.50,000/-

7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted further three months time to implement the orders dated 29.04.2011 in terms of the impugned order.”

15. It is an admitted fact that similarly situated employees have been extended the benefit of the order dated 29.04.2011. In the absence of any justification for withholding the same benefit, the denial of such benefit to the petitioner amounts to discrimination and a violation of the petitioner’s fundamental right to equality. Therefore, interference is warranted in this matter. Accordingly, the 7 impugned order deserves to be set aside.

16. The Impugned order is set aside. The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of the order dated 29.04.2011 to the petitioner in the same manner and to the same extent as has been granted to other similarly situated employees.

17. The writ petition is allowed, accordingly. ( A l o k M a h r a , J.) ( Ra v i n d r a M a i t h a n i , J.) 0 9 .0 9 .2 0 2 5 0 9 .0 9 .2 0 2 5 Mam t a/ Uj j awal 8