Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Original Application No. 802/2010

Attorney(S)

(By Advocate: Shri S.V Marne)
(By Advocate: Smt. H.P Shah with Advocate Shri S.G Pillai)

Judges

Mrutyunjay Sarangi, Member (Administrative)
Arvind Rohee, Member (Judicial)

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Tribunal Opinion Summary — OA No.802/2010 (Per: Dr. Mrutyunjay Sarangi, Member (A))

Factual and Procedural Background

The applicant joined as a Mazdoor in the Military Engineering Services on 01.10.1981 and, after successive promotions and passing a Trade Test, was promoted to HS-II on 26.06.1995 and later to HS-I w.e.f. 28.06.2001. In 1998 there were five vacancies for HS-I; four immediate seniors of the applicant were promoted while one vacancy remained unfilled allegedly because of an anticipated transfer that did not occur. In 2003 the respondents decided to merge HS-I and HS-II retrospectively w.e.f. 01.01.1996.

On 03.09.2003 three juniors to the applicant (Shri C. Prasad, Shri T.N. Sharma and Shri T.D. Boarade) were promoted directly to Master Craftsman (MCM) by superseding the applicant and four others; that order was cancelled on 08.10.2003. On 10.06.2005 those three individuals were again promoted to MCM retrospectively w.e.f. 20.05.2003. The applicant made multiple representations; on 15.04.2010 he received an RTI reply which, inter alia, stated that four persons were senior to him and that the three juniors had initially been upgraded by the previous Board but were not recommended in the revised Board.

The applicant filed the Original Application (OA) seeking quashing of the letter dated 15.04.2010 and related communications, and claiming promotion to MCM w.e.f. 20.05.2003 with consequential benefits and arrears. The OA was filed on 01.09.2010. The Tribunal heard parties, considered written materials and arguments, and allowed the OA, directing respondents to grant promotion to the applicant w.e.f. 20.05.2003 with all consequential benefits and to issue necessary orders (including arrears and pension fixation) within eight weeks. The applicant had retired on 31.08.2012; the Tribunal recorded "no order as to costs."

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the applicant was entitled to be promoted/upgraded to the post of Master Craftsman (MCM) retrospectively w.e.f. 20.05.2003.
Whether promotions conferred on juniors by supersession in 2003/2005 were irregular or erroneous and whether such errors entitled the applicant to relief.
Whether the applicant's OA was barred by limitation, given earlier promotion orders (not challenged immediately).
Whether non-joinder of the three juniors (who were earlier promoted) rendered the OA defective.
How seniority should be determined in light of restructuring/merger and the principle applied by the Ernakulam Bench judgment and subsequent corrigendum.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

The applicant accepted that four persons (S.P. Jadhav, G.P. More, V.P. Dani and G.B. Gaikwad) were senior to him, but alleged that he was eligible for promotion to HS-I in 1998 and was wrongly denied that opportunity on an unfulfilled transfer rationale.
He asserted that three juniors (Shri C. Prasad, Shri T.N. Sharma and Shri T.D. Boarade) were illegitimately promoted to MCM by superseding him; those promotions were subsequently cancelled but the respondents later again promoted them retrospectively to 20.05.2003.
Relying on a corrigendum dated 27.03.2006 implementing an Ernakulam Bench judgment, he contended that those who obtained promotion by passing Trade Test between 01.01.1996 and 19.05.2003 are enbloc senior to those promoted by restructuring; he claimed to have passed Trade Test in 1998 and thus to be senior to the three juniors.
The applicant challenged respondent communications including the RTI reply of 15.04.2010 and a departmental letter dated 08.12.2009 that declared his case closed, seeking quashing of those communications and relief of promotion w.e.f. 20.05.2003 with arrears.
On limitation, he argued that the cause of action arose when he received the impugned reply on 15.04.2010 and therefore the OA filed on 01.09.2010 was within time. He also argued that the three juniors were not made respondents because their promotions had been cancelled.

Respondents' Arguments

The respondents explained the hierarchy and noted that while HS-I and HS-II were merged after the 5th Pay Commission, a one-time relaxation on Trade Test/DPC was granted; they relied on a judgment of the Ernakulam Bench of CAT that enbloc-seniored persons who passed the Trade Test during a stated period.
They contended that in the Revised Board the applicant was not included because of seniority as per their seniority determinations — specifically, they asserted that the three individuals claimed as juniors in fact had earlier dates of initial appointment as Mazdoor (21.09.1971 and 16.11.1976) and were senior to the applicant on that basis.
The respondents admitted an error in including Shri G.B. Gaikwad (who retired on 28.02.2001) in the list for upgradation to MCM w.e.f. 20.05.2003 and accepted that inclusion was erroneous.
They argued that the applicant could have been promoted under an SC vacancy in 1998 but that no SC vacancy was then available because an SC candidate was promoted and posted to the relevant station.
On limitation, the respondents argued the OA was time-barred because the impugned non-upgradation order dated 10.06.2005 was not challenged at that time; they also pleaded non-joinder of the three juniors as respondents and contended that five vacancies w.e.f. 20.05.2003 had been filled by individuals senior to the applicant.

Applicant's Rejoinder (as presented to the Tribunal)

The applicant maintained that the three juniors continued to function as MCM until the OA was filed and were reverted only after the OA; he asserted that because the respondents had promoted three seniors (S.P. Jadhav, G.P. More and V.P. Naik) on 20.05.2003 there remained three vacancies that should have been filled by him.
He pointed to the admitted erroneous upgradation of Shri G.B. Gaikwad (retired 28.02.2001) and argued that the consequent vacancy should be filled by him as the next in seniority.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Judgment of the Ernakulam Bench of CAT dated 17.05.2005	The principle that individuals who obtained promotion by passing Trade Test between 01.01.1996 and 19.05.2003 are to be regarded as enbloc senior to those who got promotion by restructuring/relaxation of Trade Test conditions.	The respondents relied on this judgment to justify their seniority determinations in the Revised Board; the Tribunal noted the respondents' reliance but examined contemporaneous records and concluded that, on the facts before it, promotions to certain juniors were erroneous and admitted as such by respondents.
Corrigendum dated 27.03.2006 (implementing the Ernakulam Bench judgment)	Administrative implementation clarifying that those promoted by passing Trade Test in the specified period would be enbloc senior to those promoted by restructuring in relaxation of Trade Test requirements.	The applicant relied upon this corrigendum to assert his seniority vis-à-vis the three juniors; the Tribunal took this into account when assessing whether the three juniors were properly promoted and whether the applicant was entitled to retrospective upgradation.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Tribunal recorded that it had heard learned counsel for both sides and considered the documents. It proceeded in a stepwise manner:

Limitation and Cause of Action: The Tribunal accepted the applicant's submission that although promotion orders for others were passed earlier (in 2005), the applicant repeatedly represented and only received a definitive rejection by an RTI reply dated 15.04.2010. The Tribunal held that the cause of action therefore arose on receipt of that reply and found the OA (filed 01.09.2010) was not barred by limitation.
Non-joinder: The Tribunal accepted that the three juniors were not made parties because their earlier promotions had been cancelled; on that basis it found the OA was not defective for non-joinder.
1998 Vacancy and Earlier Promotions: The Tribunal examined the seniority list and factual matrix for 1998. It noted the applicant was junior to several named officers and that the fifth vacancy in 1998 was filled by Shri R.R. Bhoi (ST) who was senior to the applicant. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had no basis to be promoted in 1998 and that no injustice occurred at that time.
Irregularities in 2003 Promotions: The Tribunal found that promotions effected on 20.05.2003 involved irregularities. It observed that three juniors (Shri C. Prasad, Shri T.N. Sharma and Shri T.D. Boarade) had been promoted to MCM and that respondents later admitted this was wrong and reverted them. That admission constituted recognition that the applicant was senior to those three and thus had a legitimate claim to promotion w.e.f. 20.05.2003.
Promotion of a Retired Person and Resultant Vacancy: The respondents admitted that including Shri G.B. Gaikwad — who had retired on 28.02.2001 — in the upgradation list w.e.f. 20.05.2003 was an error. The Tribunal treated this as creating a clear vacancy (or at least an erroneous allocation) which should have been remedied in favor of the applicant, who was next in line by seniority.
Failure to Rectify and Respondents' Conduct: The Tribunal observed that although respondents admitted errors (both in promoting juniors and in including a retired person), they had not adjusted the applicant into the vacancies thus created. The Tribunal described the respondents' inaction as failing to act on representations and noted the absence of a plausible explanation from respondents, treating it as evidence supporting the applicant's claim.
Conclusion from Analysis: Combining the admitted errors regarding promotions of juniors and a retired person and the applicant's demonstrated seniority relative to the three reverted juniors, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's claim to promotion w.e.f. 20.05.2003 was "fully justified."

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Original Application is allowed. The respondents are directed to promote the applicant to the post of Master Craftsman (MCM) with effect from 20.05.2003 and to provide all consequential benefits, including payment of arrears and fixation of pension.

Direct Consequences Ordered by the Tribunal:

Respondents must pass necessary orders implementing the promotion w.e.f. 20.05.2003 and effect payment of all arrears and fixation of pension and other consequential benefits within eight weeks from receipt of the copy of the order.
It was noted that the applicant retired on 31.08.2012; the order contemplates retrospective implementation and pension fixation accordingly.
No order as to costs was made by the Tribunal.

Broader Implications:

The opinion addresses correction of specific administrative errors in promotion and seniority in the factual matrix of this case and orders relief to the applicant. The text does not state that the Tribunal intended to lay down a new general precedent beyond applying and construing the existing Ernakulam Bench judgment and its corrigendum to the facts; therefore, the direct effect is relief to the applicant and corrective administrative action by the respondents.

Judge(s): (Shri Arvind Rohee) Member (J) and (Dr. Mrutyunjay Sarangi) Member (A)

Show full summary ...

Namdeo Shankar Gaikwad v. Union Of India

Per : Dr. Mrutyunjay Sarangi, Member (A) The applicant in the present Original Application is aggrieved by denial of promotion from the date of his eligibility and has approached this Tribunal with a prayer to upgrade

2 OA No.802/2010 him to the post of Master Craftsman (herein after referred to as MCM) w.e.f. 20.05.2003 with all consequential benefits including actual arrears of pay.

2. The facts of the case as apparent from the OA are as follows:

i) The applicant had joined in the post of Mazdoor in the Military Engineering Services on 01.10.1981. After a series of promotions, he finally cleared the Trade Test and was promoted to the post of HS-II on 26.06.1995. In 1998 there were 5 vacancies for the post of HSI but the respondents gave promotion to 4 individuals namely S.P. Jadhav, G.P. More,

V.P. Dani and G.B. Gaikwad who were immediate seniors to the applicant. Although, there was one remaining vacancy the applicant was not considered for promotion on the ground that the post will be filled up on transfer of an HS-I from Bhusawal to Deolali. No such transfer took place and the post of HS-I continued to remain vacant despite the applicant's repeated representations. He was finally

3 OA No.802/2010 promoted to the post of HS-I w.e.f. 28.06.2001. In the year 2003, the respondents took a decision to merge the posts of HS-I and HS-II retrospectively w.e.f. 01.01.1996. On 03.09.2003 prior to the formal merger of the posts of HS-I and HS-II, three individuals namely Shri C. Prasad, Shri T.N. Sharma and Shri T.D. Borade, who were juniors to the applicant and working on the post of HS-II were promoted directly to the post of MCM by superseding the applicant and 4 other seniors. The order was however, cancelled on 08.10.2003. On 10.06.2005 the above mentioned 3 individuals Shri C. Prasad, Shri T.N. Sharma and Shri T.D. Borade, were again promoted to the post of MCM retrospectively w.e.f. 20.05.2003 by superseding the applicant as well as 4 other seniors. On 07.07.2005 the applicant made a representation to the respondent no.2. On 22.11.2008 the respondent no.3 promoted 26 individuals belonging to various categories to the post of MCM but the applicant was not

4 OA No.802/2010 included in the said order. The applicant made repeated representations to the respondents on his non-upgradation to the post of MCM w.e.f 20.05.2003. The last such representation was on 21.12.2009 addressed to respondent no.3. On 15.04.2010 the applicant received a reply under RTI Act wherein it was mentioned that 4 persons were senior to him, namely Shri S.P. Jadhav, Shri G.P. More, Shri

V.P. Dani and Shri G.B. Gaikwad. He was also informed that the 3 persons junior to him namely Shri C. Prasad, Shri T.N. Sharma and Shri T.D. Borade were initially upgraded as MCM w.e.f. 20.05.2003 as per the approval of the previous Board but in the revised Board they were not recommended for upgradation as MCM. The applicant in the OA has prayed for quashing this letter dated 15.04.2010. He has also prayed for quashing the letter No.1054/1815/EIR(I) dated 08.12.2009 on the subject request to investigate how juniors are granted promotions of MCM ignoring my seniority. This letter is in

5 OA No.802/2010 reply to the applicant's application dated 18.06.2009 and the applicant is informed that his case is declared as closed.

3. The applicant has based his prayer on the following grounds;

i) The applicant does not deny that Shri S.P. Jadhav, Shri G.P. More, Shri V.P. Dani and Shri G.B. Gaikwad are senior to him. The applicant claims that he was eligible for promotion to the post of HS-I in the year 1998 but he was denied the promotion on the ground that one HS-I was to be transferred from Bhusawal to Deolali which never happened. The 4 persons senior to him were promoted to HS-I. In the year 2003, the respondents had taken a decision to merge the post of HS-I and HS-II retrospectively w.e.f. 01.01.1996, since the 5th Pay Commission had recommended an identical Pay Scale of Rs.4000-6000 to both the post of HS-I and HS-II. By a letter dated 03.03.2004 one time relaxation was granted on the requirement of passing of Trade Test and holding of DPC for merger of HS-II to the post of HS-I.

6 OA No.802/2010 ii) The 3 individuals who are juniors to the applicant namely Shri C. Prasad, Shri T.N. Sharma and Shri T.D. Borade were directly promoted to the post of MCM on 03.09.2003 but the order was subsequently cancelled on 08.10.2003. The Pay Scale of the MCM is Rs.4500-7000 whereas the Pay Scale of HS-I/HS-II was Rs.4000-6000 as per the 5th Pay Commission Recommendation. Within a period of less then 2 years the respondents again issued a promotion order dated 10.06.2005 upgrading the 3 juniors namely (Shri C. Prasad, Shri T.N. Sharma and Shri T.D. Borade) to the post of MCM retrospectively w.e.f. 20.05.2003. iii) It is the applicant's contention that such promotion to the juniors by superseding the applicant and 4 other seniors is illegal. On 27.03.2006 the respondent no.1 had issued a corrigendum for implementation of the judgment of the Ernakulam Bench of CAT. By the said corrigendum dated 27.03.2006 it was stipulated that the individuals who got the promotion to the post of HS-I by way of

7 OA No.802/2010 passing Trade Test between 01.01.1996 to 19.05.2003 would be enbloc senior to those who got promotion as a result of restructuring of cadre in relaxation of condition of passing Trade Test. It is the applicant's contention that even as per the corrigendum dated 27.03.2006 he was clearly senior to Shri C. Prasad, Shri T.N. Sharma and Shri T.D. Borade. It is the applicant's claim that he was promoted to the post of HS-I on 28.06.2001 as a result of passing of Trade Test in the year 1998 where as the above mentioned 3 individuals (Shri C. Prasad, Shri T.N. Sharma and Shri T.D. Borade) were never promoted to the post of HS-I and were merely redesignated as HS without passing any Trade Test. iv) The respondents had convened a Review Board and as per the recommendation of the Board, respondent no.3 issued order dated 22.11.2008, by which 26 individuals from various categories were promoted to the post of MCM. In the said list 3 persons senior to the applicant in the

8 OA No.802/2010 category of Fitter General Mechanical were promoted to the post of MCM retrospectively w.e.f. 20.05.2003 and adjusted in-situ. But the name of the applicant was not included in the said order dated 22.11.2008.

v) In the impugned order dated 15.04.2010, the respondent no.3 has stated that although Shri C. Prasad, Shri T.N. Sharma and Shri T.D. Borade were upgraded as MCM w.e.f. 20.05.2003 by the previous Board, they were not recommended for up- gradation as MCM by the Revised Board. The applicant has denied this contention and maintained that the three individuals were continuing to work in the post of MCM even on the date of filing of the OA. The applicant claims that respondent no.3 has given misleading reasons in his order dated 15.04.2010 to deny the legitimate claim of the applicant. vi) As per the applicant, the present position is that all the seniors of the applicant have been retrospectively upgraded as MCM w.e.f. 20.05.2003. The 3

9 OA No.802/2010 persons junior to the applicant namely (Shri C. Prasad, Shri T.N. Sharma and Shri T.D. Borade) are also working as MCM w.e.f. 20.05.2003 whereas the applicant is still working as HS. He is the only one who is left behind in the matter of promotion. He has, therefore, claimed that he should be given promotion on the same date w.e.f. 20.05.2003 with all arrears of pay and allowances. vii) The applicant is also aggrieved by the fact that one Shri G.B. Gaikwad who is senior to him had already retired from service on 28.02.2001 but he was also upgraded to the post of MCM w.e.f. 20.05.2003 in the Revised Board approved list as per letter No.12013/3/HS/4943/EIB (S) dated 10.10.2008.

4. The respondents in their reply dated 05.08.2011 have denied that any injustice has been done to the applicant;

i) The hierarchy of promotion in the relevant categories is Mazdoor to Unskilled to Skilled to HS-II to HS-I and MCM. When the decision was taken to merge

10 OA No.802/2010 the HS-I and HS-II consequent to the adoption of the 5th Pay Commission Recommendation there was a one time relaxation given for Trade Test, DPC etc. The judgment of the Ernakulam Bench of CAT dated 17.05.2005 clearly stipulated that the individuals who got promotions by way of passing Trade Test etc between 01.01.1996 to 19.05.2003 would be enbloc senior to those who got promotion as a result of restructuring of cadres in relaxation of conditions of passing Trade Test etc. In the Revised Board, the applicant's name had not been considered due to seniority. Since the applicant is senior to the 3 individuals namely (Shri C. Prasad, Shri T.N. Sharma and Shri T.D. Borade) these 3 individuals are no longer holding the post of MCM. ii) The respondents contend that the applicant's date of appointment as Mazdoor was 01.10.1981 on the other hand the date of appointment of Shri C. Prasad as Mazdoor was 21.09.1971, Shri T.N. Sharma as Mazdoor was 21.09.1971 and Shri T.D.

11 OA No.802/2010 Boarade as Mazdoor was 16.11.1976. So in the initial appointment they were senior to the applicant and, therefore, in the Revised Board his name was not included, since he was junior to Shri C. Prasad, Shri T.N. Sharma and Shri T.D. Boarade. It is for this reason that the Revised Board had recommended the appointment of Shri C. Prasad, Shri T.N. Sharma and Shri T.D. Boarade to the post of MCM w.e.f. 20.05.2003. The respondents also contend that the name of Shri G.B. Gaikwad in the order dated 10.10.2008 was included erroneously for up-gradation to the post of MCM w.e.f 20.05.2003 since he had retired on 28.02.2001. The respondents have admitted this error. iii) Referring to the applicant's contention that he was not considered for 5th vacancy in the year 1998 the respondents hold that he could be promoted under the SC category but there was no SC vacancy in the year 1998 available to him since one Shri I.A. Barode was an SC candidate from Bhusawal, who was promoted

12 OA No.802/2010 to HS-I and posted in Deolali vide order dated 14.05.1999. It is because of this fact although 4 officers senior to him were promoted, he could not got promotion in the year 1999. iv) The respondents have also alleged that the present OA filed by the applicant fails on the ground of limitation since his non-upgradation to the post of MCM was in the order dated 10.06.2005 which he did not challenge at that time. Respondents have also maintained that since he has not included Shri C. Prasad, Shri T.N. Sharma and Shri T.D. Boarade, as respondents, the present OA fails on the ground of non- joinder of parties. The respondents claim that there were 5 vacancies w.e.f. 20.05.2003 and all the 5 were promoted, were senior to the applicant.

6. The applicant has filed a Rejoinder on 11.08.2011 to the reply of the respondents. In the Rejoinder the applicant made the following points:

i) The applicant has alleged that Shri C. Prasad, Shri T.N. Sharma and

13 OA No.802/2010 Shri T.D. Boarade were being continued on the post of MCM although they were not eligible and they were reverted only after the present OA was filed before this Tribunal. ii) Moreover, on 20.05.2003 after the promotion of Shri S.P. Jadhav, Shri G.P. More and Shri V.P. Naik, the respondents had 3 more vacancies of MCM on which Shri C. Prasad, Shri T.N. Sharma and Shri T.D. Boarade were continued until filing of the present OA. Since the respondents admit that the above mentioned 3 individuals are juniors to the applicant the respondents were left with no other alternative but to promote/upgrade the applicant as MCM w.e.f. 20.05.2003. iii) The applicant has also drawn our attention to the fact that Shri G.B. Gaikwad who retired from service on 28.02.2001 was given up-gradation as MCM w.e.f. 20.05.2003. The respondents have admitted that this was an error and if that is so, the vacancy should be filled

14 OA No.802/2010 up by the applicant who is next to Shri V.P. Danik in seniority. Findings

7. We have heard the learned counsels from both the sides. We have also perused the documents submitted by them. During the arguments, the learned counsel for th applicant rebutted the charge of the respondents that the OA is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. He has rightly mentioned that although the orders for promotion of others were passed in 2005, the applicant had made a repeated representation and only when he got a reply from the authorities on the rejection of his representation on 15.04.2010, that the cause of action arose and he has filed this OA in this Tribunal on 01.09.2010. Therefore, the OA is not hit by law of limitation. Similarly, the three juniors to the applicant were not added as respondents since orders for cancellation of their promotion have already been issued, therefore, the present OA is not hit on the ground of non-joinder of parties.

8. The present case revolves around the issue of seniority of the applicant and his promotion to the post of MCM which he alleges has been

15 OA No.802/2010 denied to him. A perusal of the documents submitted by the applicant and the respondents shows that in the year 1998 Shri N.S. Gaikwad (SC) the applicant was junior to Shri S.P. Jadhav (SC), Shri G.P. More (SC), Shri G.B. Gaikwad (SC), Shri V.P. Dani (SC) and Shri R.R. Bhoi (ST). In the 5 vacancies which were filled-up in 1998, 4 were from Scheduled Caste category and 1 was from Scheduled Tribe category. Shri R.R. Bhoi was promoted and posted to GE(N), Deolali whereas all others were adjusted in-situ on promotion. The applicant has submitted in his prayer that in the year 1998 he was denied promotion on the ground that one HS-I was being transferred from Bhusawal to Dolali, but the individual did not join. The seniority list appended by the respondents (Appendix B) to the reply clearly shows that Shri R.R. Bhoi who was posted in the 5th vacancy was from the Scheduled Tribe category and was senior to the applicant. In 1998, there was no vacancy in which anybody junior to the applicant was posted. The respondents have admitted that in 1999 one Shri I.S. Bharude, working in GE(I)(P) (FY) Bhusawal was promoted to HS-I and posted to GE (S) Deolali. So it is

16 OA No.802/2010 obvious that in 1998 the applicant had no ground to be promoted and no injustice has been done to him.

9. However, from the records it is apparent that during the promotion given on 20.05.2003 irregularities have taken place on the matter of promotion which the respondents have termed as error. The first error was to promote juniors to the applicant namely Shri C. Prasad, Shri T.N. Sharma and Shri T.D. Boarade. The respondents have done it on the ground that their seniority was determined by an instruction issued after the order of the Ernakulam Bench of CAT. However, the respondents in their reply have admitted that this promotion was wrong and, therefore, these 3 individuals were subsequently reverted. This, therefore, proves that the applicant was senior to the above 3 individuals and deserved to be promoted on 20.05.2003. The respondents while admitting that they have committed an error, have not given relief to the applicant by adjusting him in one of the 3 vacancies which were illegally occupied by the 3 persons junior to him namely, Shri C. Prasad, Shri T.N. Sharma and Shri T.D. Boarade.

17 OA No.802/2010

10. The respondents have also admitted that they have committed an error by promoting Shri G.B. Gaikwad on 20.05.2003 when the individual had already retired on 28.2.2001. It is quite surprising that such an error can occur after a person's retirement and at the same time the applicant could be denied promotion when a clearcut vacancy arose because of the erroneous promotion to a retired person. The respondents have obviously failed to act on the representations submitted by the applicant, it shows a clear bias against the applicant for reasons best known to the respondents who have not offered any plausible explanation for this in their reply to the OA. It is surprising that the respondents have committed so many errors and have not rectified the injustice meted out to the applicant.

11. Keeping the above in view, we find that the applicant's claim for promotion w.e.f. 20.05.2003 is fully justified.

12. The Original Application is allowed. The respondents are directed to give promotion to the applicant w.e.f. 20.05.2003 with all consequential benefits. Since the applicant

18 OA No.802/2010 retired on 31.08.2012, necessary orders may be passed on promotion w.e.f. 20.05.2003, the payment of all arrears, fixation of pension and all consequential benefits, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs. (Shri Arvind Rohee) (Dr. Mrutyunjay Sarangi) Member (J) Member (A)

Namdeo Shankar Gaikwad v. Union Of India

Tribunal Opinion Summary — OA No.802/2010 (Per: Dr. Mrutyunjay Sarangi, Member (A))

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

Respondents' Arguments

Applicant's Rejoinder (as presented to the Tribunal)

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Namdeo Shankar Gaikwad v. Union Of India

Comments

We use cookies to improve your experience