AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Hon'ble Mr. M.S. Latif, Member (Judl.)
The applicants, six (06) in number, have filed the instant O.A. Since the cause of action and reliefs claimed by all the applicants are identical, the M.A. for joint application under Rule 4(5)(a) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, is allowed.
Through the medium of the instant O.A., the applicants seek the following reliefs:
a. Direct the respondent No.2 & 3 to immediately release the in-situ promotions due to the applicants from the date as per the details submitted in para No. 4.7 of OA. The Hon'ble Tribunal may further be pleased to direct the respondents to initiate and finalize the process of grant of In-situ promotion to the applicants expeditiously preferably within a period of three months.
b. The respondents be further directed to calculate the arrears to which the applicants will be found entitled to said benefits as per details submitted in para No. 4.7 of OA and release the said arrears along with interest at bank rates in favour of the applicants preferably within a period of three months from the date this Hon'ble Tribunal may dispose off this original application.
c. Any other, order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the circumstances of the case may also be passed in favor of the applicants and against the respondents in the interest of justice and equity.
What stems out of the pleadings made is that the applicants are serving on various non-gazetted posts in the respondent Health Department, including Junior Lab Technician, Junior Pharmacist, X-Ray Technician and Junior X-Ray Technician. It is stated that they were appointed between the years 1995 and 2007 and have rendered long and satisfactory service ranging from about 19 to 31 years.
It is averred that the applicants fulfill all the eligibility conditions for grant of in-situ promotion under SRO 14 of 1996, including the prescribed qualifying service, residency period, eligibility under the recruitment rules, fitness for promotion, etc. It is further stated that the applicants have bleak chances of functional promotion as per rules and, therefore, are entitled to the benefit of in-situ promotion envisaged under the said rules to remove stagnation in service. It is added that the Rule 5, 5A, Rule 5AA provides the mode and manner of grant of in-situ promotion. The same is appended with the O.A. as Annexure A2.
It is further stated that some of the applicants were granted the 1st in-situ promotion after considerable delay vide orders dated 08.11.2005, 28.10.1996, 22.07.2000 and 24.05.2007. It is added that the applicant nos. 1, 2, 4 & 6 have been granted 1st in-situ promotions, therefore, now they are entitled to 2nd and 3rd in-situ promotion while the applicant nos. 3 and 5 have not been granted any in-situ promotion despite becoming eligible. As stated, the applicants have also made representation before the respondents, however, the respondents have failed to redress their grievances.
It is contended that after the year 2022, the respondents have made amendment to service rules by issuing a fresh SO 334 of 2022 dated 13.07.2022, in terms of which, the District Level Promotion Committee for addressing departmental promotions is to be headed by Chief Medical Officer. Therefore, the applicants have been continuously representing the respondents to address their grievance. However, despite that no action has been taken by the respondents.
Learned Sr. Counsel for the applicants submits that the respondents are legally bound to grant the applicants the due in-situ promotions from the dates they became eligible under SRO 14 of 1996, together with all consequential benefits, and that the denial of the same has resulted in discrimination, financial prejudice and stagnation in service.
Being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in granting the due in-situ promotions and consequential benefits, the applicants have filed the instant O.A. seeking appropriate reliefs before this Tribunal.
Learned Sr. Counsel for the applicants has challenged the inaction of the respondents on various grounds as have been urged in the O.A. He submits that withholding of the said benefits is against SRO 14 as also against the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 1999 (2) SCC 119. He also submits that delay in grant of in-situ promotions is in violation of fundamental rights of the applicants guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution which envisages, "equal opportunity in the matters of public employment".
Heard.
At the request of learned Sr. Counsel for the applicants, the O.A. is taken up for its disposal.
The O.A. is disposed of by providing that the respondents shall treat this O.A. as a representation, who shall consider and decide the case of the applicants, as regards their in-situ promotions, in accordance with law, keeping in view the merits of the case and the entitlements / eligibility of the applicants. The above exercise shall be done by passing a speaking order within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date a certified copy of this Order is served upon the respondents. Needless to mention that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits or otherwise of the case.
Accordingly, O.A. No. 827/2026 is disposed of along with all connected M.A.s, if any.