J. James vs Union Of India & Ors.

Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member

The applicant, who retired as Technician Grade I (Welder) in PB-1 with Grade Pay of ₹2800/- from Southern Railway on 30.11.2014, has approached this Tribunal claiming that he was denied promotion.

The applicant, lamenting that his promotion as Technician Grade I from Grade II on 12.12.2012 was highly belated and if he had been promoted on time, he could have been promoted as Senior Technician in PB2 + GP ₹4200/-. Seeking relief he submitted Annexure A-10 representation. It was rejected by two separate orders, which were the subject matter in OA/369/2015. This Tribunal after referring to the various provisions of IREM, set aside Annexures A-1, A-2 therein, and directed the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the applicant in the light of Rule 214 of Section 'B' Chapter II of IREM Vol.I. Accordingly, Annexure A-13 order was passed. Contending that Annexure A-13 is not legally sustainable, the applicant has approached this Tribunal for a declaration that he is entitled for promotion as Technician Gr. I with effect from 14.07.2012 and also to grant him further promotion as Senior Technician in PB-2 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- atleast from 15.07.2014.

The contention of the respondents regarding his claim for earlier promotion as Technician-I is that assessment of vacancy was done on 15.09.2012 and the applicant was promoted on 12.12.2012, at that time since re-structuring process was going on. Applicant could be considered for further promotion as Senior Technician only after completion of two years of residency period in the immediate lower grade. However, he superannuated before completion of 2 year residency period.

Having considered this fact and that the vacancy was not available at that relevant time, we are inclined to hold that the applicant's claim is unsustainable. The applicant was rightly promoted as Technician Grade I with effect from 12.12.2012. Since he has not completed residency period, which was mandatory in that post, he could not be considered for further promotion. The upshot of the above is that the applicant is not entitled for the relief sought.

The OA fails and is dismissed. No costs.