M.D. Pandey v. Union of India & Ors.

was ultimately challenged by the applicant/petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Nainital, Uttarakhand in Original Application, as referred above. We now revert to the situation in 1976-77, when initially, as per the case of the petitioner, similarly situated Cooks were promoted to the post of Security Assistants as it is this promotion/appointment which goes to the root of the matter. It is an admitted case that the scheme by which the Cooks were promoted to the post of Security Assistants in the year 1976-77 was only applicable to those Cooks who were working in Laddakh or Arunanchal Pradesh or Shimla i.e. the scheme was for those working on a high altitude area. This scheme was not applicable in case of the petitioner who at the relevant time was working at Haldwani. Whatever the merits and demerits of such a scheme, neither this Court nor the Tribunal was in any position to examine the said scheme on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as there was no challenge to this scheme either before the Tribunal or before any other authority or even in the present writ petition. It is for this reason that the Tribunal came to a conclusion that what goes to the root of the matter is the promotions given to the other Cooks in the year 1976-77 on the basis of the scheme which still remain unchallenged. 4 The respondents have argued that in 1976, it was only a one time exception that the Cooks working in the forward areas like Laddakh and Arunanchal Pradesh with 5 years service were considered for appointment as Security Assistants. Since the applicant did not fulfil the criteria as mentioned above, he could not be considered appointment as Security Assistant. Only such persons were appointed as Security Assistant in 1977 who were working under I.T.B.F, Leh and S.I.B. Shimla. No Cook under other S.I.Bs such as the petitioner was appointed as Security Assistant under the said scheme. Therefore, applicant/petitioner cannot claim that he should have been appointed as Security Assistant along with those persons junior to him in 1977. This Court, therefore, finds no anomaly in the conclusions arrived at by the Central Administrative Bench, Circuit Bench at Nainital in the Original Application No. 17 of 2001 filed by the petitioner/applicant. The scheme by which the promotions were given to the Cooks in the year 1976-77 was not applicable in the case of the petitioner. Moreover, there is no challenge to such a scheme. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be given retrospective promotion or a notional promotion as has prayed, in his Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Nainital dated 23.4.2003 is perfectly in order. The writ petition is totally devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J.) Avneet

22.4.2010