Dr. Satya Prakash Singh v. Union of India and others) finding no infirmity in the order dated

finding no infirmity in the order dated 18.04.2013 impugned before it.

3. Brief facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Medical Officer (A.M.O.) in the Department on 09.05.1983. His services were regularised on 11.09.1989 in Class "A" as ADMO Junior Scale Officer and his pay was fixed in Grade Rs.700-1600 from the date of his initial appointment as Adhoc A.M.O., i.e.

09.05.1983, as per Railway Board's letter. Thereafter, on

01.05.1993, the petitioner was promoted as Divisional Medical Officer (D.M.O) in the pay grade of Rs.3000-4500. On

13.12.1999, he was promoted in Junior Administrative Grade in the pay grade of Rs. 10000-15200. On 18.07.2007, he was promoted as Senior Divisional Medical Officer (Sr. D.M.O.) Senior Administrative Grade, with selection grade on pay scale of Rs 37000-67000 fixing Rs. 46000-00 in Pay Band -4. Dynamic Assured Career Progression (D.A.C.P.) Scheme came into force on

07.01.2009. The petitioner claimed implementation of the Scheme on the ground that he had completed his satisfactory regular services of 20 years on 10.09.2009 and, therefore, he be granted Senior Administrative Grade. Raising aforesaid grievance, the petitioner submitted certain representations and, thereafter, filed an O.A. No. 1651 of 2012 before the Tribunal which was decided on

05.12.2012 directing the respondents to decide the petitioner's representation. Vide order dated 18.04.2013, passed by the Member Staff, Railway Board, New Delhi, petitioner's representation was rejected by making certain observations.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to certain documents on record, vehemently submitted that the respondents have admitted the petitioner's entitlement to get Senior Administrative Grade on completing seven years in Selection Grade, which was granted to him on 18.07.2007 and, therefore, he was eligible to get Senior Administrative Grade on 18.07.2014 but the same was not given to him and he has retired on 31.03.2015.

5. On the first hearing of the matter conducted on 03.12.2024, this Court, after noting down the aforesaid contention, called for instructions from the respondents. The respondents, on instructions, submitted before us that the case of the petitioner was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee ('D.P.C.') on completion of seven years qualifying service but he was not found suitable. The respondents, however, admitted the fact that non-suitability of the petitioner for promotion could not be brought to the notice of the Tribunal as counter affidavit before the Tribunal was filed prior to the meeting of DPC. After noting down such contention in our order dated 06.02.2025, we directed the respondents to place on record material in relation to DPC meeting.

6. Record of two meetings of DPC held on 10.01.2014 and

19.01.2015 was placed before us today. In both the meetings, the petitioner has been shown 'unfit' based upon A.C.R. and for other reasons.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that such a determination is contrary to the guidelines prescribed under the Railway Board's letter dated 03.06.2002, particularly Clause 6 thereof, which reads as under:- "6. Confidential Reports are the basic inputs on the basis of which assessment is to be made by the DPC. The DPC will assess the suitability of the officers for promotion on the basis of their service records and with particular reference to the five preceding years."

8. Submissions have been made that, in the meeting of the DPC held on 10.01.2014, the petitioner's name stands reflected at Sl. No. 28 where ACRs of five years ranging from 2008 to 2012 have been taken into consideration but the Department has erred in not taking consideration the ACR of the year 2013. Submission is that had such ACR been considered, as the petitioner had got ACR 'very good/ fit' he could not have been categorised as 'unfit'. Similar stand has been taken qua DPC meeting held on 19.01.2015 with reference to Entry No. 18 and the submission is that ACR of 2014 has been omitted from being considered in which the petitioner has got remark 'very good/ fit'.

9. Per contra, learned A.S.G.I. submits that the issue before the Tribunal was not in relation to the petitioner's entitlement for being promoted, rather the challenge was confined to the order dated

18.04.2013 based upon non-completion of qualifying service of twenty years as on 07.01.2009 and, consequently, he was found not eligible for consideration for Senior Administrative Grade. It is further submitted that para 3.2 of the order impugned before the Tribunal itself reflects that the department had agreed to consider petitioner's claim for promotion on his completion of seven years in Selection Grade. It is, therefore, urged that once the Department has considered the petitioner's claim for promotion on merits and has found him as 'unfit', unless a challenge is laid to such determination, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present proceedings.

10. We have considered the submissions made and have gone through the record and we find that before the Tribunal, only validity of the order dated 18.04.2013 was under challenge. The same had nothing to do with the petitioner's claim for promotion, rather the Department had itself made it clear that such claim would be considered after the petitioner completes seven years in Selection Grade. Though it is true that when the Tribunal decided the matter before it in September, 2024, two meetings of DPC had already been held in 2014 and 2015 but this fact was not brought on record before the Tribunal, whatever may have been the reasons. Therefore, whether the Department was right or wrong in its determination as far as the petitioner's claim for promotion is concerned, no such finding can be recorded in these proceedings as the same would either way affect the case of the rival parties without it being the matter in issue either before the Tribunal or before us.

11. Therefore, while we find no error in the Tribunal's order dated

17.09.2024 affirming the order dated 18.04.2013 passed by the authority, we may observe that none of the said orders would come in the way of the petitioner's claim for promotion and promotional benefits, which have been denied by the Department in the meetings of DPC held in 2014 and 2015, as aforesaid.

12. Leaving it open for the petitioner to raise a challenge to the determination made in the DPC's meetings dated 10.01.2014 and

19.01.2015 in appropriate proceedings and without interfering with the orders impugned, the present petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 AKShukla/- (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

finding no infirmity in the order dated 18.04.2013 impugned before it.

3. Brief facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Medical Officer (A.M.O.) in the Department on 09.05.1983. His services were regularised on 11.09.1989 in Class "A" as ADMO Junior Scale Officer and his pay was fixed in Grade Rs.700-1600 from the date of his initial appointment as Adhoc A.M.O., i.e.

09.05.1983, as per Railway Board's letter. Thereafter, on

01.05.1993, the petitioner was promoted as Divisional Medical Officer (D.M.O) in the pay grade of Rs.3000-4500. On

13.12.1999, he was promoted in Junior Administrative Grade in the pay grade of Rs. 10000-15200. On 18.07.2007, he was promoted as Senior Divisional Medical Officer (Sr. D.M.O.) Senior Administrative Grade, with selection grade on pay scale of Rs 37000-67000 fixing Rs. 46000-00 in Pay Band -4. Dynamic Assured Career Progression (D.A.C.P.) Scheme came into force on

07.01.2009. The petitioner claimed implementation of the Scheme on the ground that he had completed his satisfactory regular services of 20 years on 10.09.2009 and, therefore, he be granted Senior Administrative Grade. Raising aforesaid grievance, the petitioner submitted certain representations and, thereafter, filed an O.A. No. 1651 of 2012 before the Tribunal which was decided on

05.12.2012 directing the respondents to decide the petitioner's representation. Vide order dated 18.04.2013, passed by the Member Staff, Railway Board, New Delhi, petitioner's representation was rejected by making certain observations.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to certain documents on record, vehemently submitted that the respondents have admitted the petitioner's entitlement to get Senior Administrative Grade on completing seven years in Selection Grade, which was granted to him on 18.07.2007 and, therefore, he was eligible to get Senior Administrative Grade on 18.07.2014 but the same was not given to him and he has retired on 31.03.2015.

5. On the first hearing of the matter conducted on 03.12.2024, this Court, after noting down the aforesaid contention, called for instructions from the respondents. The respondents, on instructions, submitted before us that the case of the petitioner was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee ('D.P.C.') on completion of seven years qualifying service but he was not found suitable. The respondents, however, admitted the fact that non-suitability of the petitioner for promotion could not be brought to the notice of the Tribunal as counter affidavit before the Tribunal was filed prior to the meeting of DPC. After noting down such contention in our order dated 06.02.2025, we directed the respondents to place on record material in relation to DPC meeting.

6. Record of two meetings of DPC held on 10.01.2014 and

19.01.2015 was placed before us today. In both the meetings, the petitioner has been shown 'unfit' based upon A.C.R. and for other reasons.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that such a determination is contrary to the guidelines prescribed under the Railway Board's letter dated 03.06.2002, particularly Clause 6 thereof, which reads as under:- "6. Confidential Reports are the basic inputs on the basis of which assessment is to be made by the DPC. The DPC will assess the suitability of the officers for promotion on the basis of their service records and with particular reference to the five preceding years."

8. Submissions have been made that, in the meeting of the DPC held on 10.01.2014, the petitioner's name stands reflected at Sl. No. 28 where ACRs of five years ranging from 2008 to 2012 have been taken into consideration but the Department has erred in not taking consideration the ACR of the year 2013. Submission is that had such ACR been considered, as the petitioner had got ACR 'very good/ fit' he could not have been categorised as 'unfit'. Similar stand has been taken qua DPC meeting held on 19.01.2015 with reference to Entry No. 18 and the submission is that ACR of 2014 has been omitted from being considered in which the petitioner has got remark 'very good/ fit'.

9. Per contra, learned A.S.G.I. submits that the issue before the Tribunal was not in relation to the petitioner's entitlement for being promoted, rather the challenge was confined to the order dated

18.04.2013 based upon non-completion of qualifying service of twenty years as on 07.01.2009 and, consequently, he was found not eligible for consideration for Senior Administrative Grade. It is further submitted that para 3.2 of the order impugned before the Tribunal itself reflects that the department had agreed to consider petitioner's claim for promotion on his completion of seven years in Selection Grade. It is, therefore, urged that once the Department has considered the petitioner's claim for promotion on merits and has found him as 'unfit', unless a challenge is laid to such determination, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present proceedings.

10. We have considered the submissions made and have gone through the record and we find that before the Tribunal, only validity of the order dated 18.04.2013 was under challenge. The same had nothing to do with the petitioner's claim for promotion, rather the Department had itself made it clear that such claim would be considered after the petitioner completes seven years in Selection Grade. Though it is true that when the Tribunal decided the matter before it in September, 2024, two meetings of DPC had already been held in 2014 and 2015 but this fact was not brought on record before the Tribunal, whatever may have been the reasons. Therefore, whether the Department was right or wrong in its determination as far as the petitioner's claim for promotion is concerned, no such finding can be recorded in these proceedings as the same would either way affect the case of the rival parties without it being the matter in issue either before the Tribunal or before us.

11. Therefore, while we find no error in the Tribunal's order dated

17.09.2024 affirming the order dated 18.04.2013 passed by the authority, we may observe that none of the said orders would come in the way of the petitioner's claim for promotion and promotional benefits, which have been denied by the Department in the meetings of DPC held in 2014 and 2015, as aforesaid.

12. Leaving it open for the petitioner to raise a challenge to the determination made in the DPC's meetings dated 10.01.2014 and

19.01.2015 in appropriate proceedings and without interfering with the orders impugned, the present petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 AKShukla/- (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad