Dr. Seema Akbar vs Union Of India

The applicant was appointed as Research Officer (Chemistry), equivalent to Scientist-I; in the Regional Research Institute of Unani Medicine on ad hoc basis, on 26.12.1991. Thereafter, she was appointed on regular basis w.e.f. 17.01.2005.

The scheme of in situ promotion for the Scientists in various Organisations in the Country was introduced through OM dated 03.09.2008. Scientists from one category to another are promoted on completion of five years of regular service, subject to verification of records and on their being found eligible, by a Committee. In this context, the applicant was promoted to S-2 level through proceedings dated 30.07.2009 w.e.f. 03.09.2008 and was put in a higher pay scale. However, through a Memorandum dated 27.03.2012, the promotion of the applicant to S-2 level was treated to be w.e.f. 10.01.2010. This OA is filed challenging the said Memorandum.

The applicant contends that it was on their own accord, that the respondents extended the benefit of in situ promotion to her, duly taking into account, part of the ad hoc service, and without even issuing any show cause notice, the respondents passed the impugned order. She contends that the benefit of counting the ad-hoc service was extended to many Scientists in the respondent Organisation, and that she has been discriminated.

Respondents filed a counter affidavit opposing the OA. It is stated that only such of the Scientists in S-1 category, who have completed five years of regular service are eligible to be promoted to S-2 level, but in the case of the applicant, due to mistake, the promotion was effected even before she completed the stipulated service, and that the impugned order was issued to correct the mistake.

We heard Ms. Harvinder Oberoi, learned counsel for applicant and Shri Rajinder Nischal and Shri S. Sunil, learned counsel for respondents.

It has already been mentioned that initial appointment of the applicant was to S-1 level, on 26.12.1991 on ad hoc basis; and that she was appointed on regular basis in that post on 17.01.2005.

The scheme framed by the respondents for promotion of Scientists from one level to another stipulates the requirement of five years of regular service, in the feeder category. Since the OM dated 03.09.2008, which provided for in situ promotion was implemented for the first time, the respondents issued the Memorandum dated 30.07.2009, extending the benefit to the applicant also. All the Scientists who were promoted through the said order were extended the benefit w.e.f. 03.09.2008. This included the applicant also.

It appears that at a later stage, the respondents have taken a view that five years service in the feeder category must be 'regular' in nature, and the applicant completed such a service only in the year 2010.

However, if they wanted to revise the promotion of the applicant in the context of effective date or otherwise, it was incumbent upon them to put the applicant on notice. That, however, was not done and straightway the impugned Memorandum dated 27.03.2012 was passed, modifying the effective date from 03.09.2008 to 10.01.2010. That would have its impact on future promotional avenues also.

We, therefore, allow the OA and set aside the impugned order on the short ground that it violates principles of natural justice. It shall be open to the respondents to issue notice to the applicant and take further steps, in accordance with law.

Pending MAs, if any, stand disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.