Lalji Maurya vs Union Of India & Ors.

“1.

To quash the impugned order dated 26.07.2016 and order dated 04.07.2014 (contained as Annexure No. A-1 and A-1A) to the extent, it denies the actual benefits i.e. arrears of pay with all consequential benefits.

2.

To pay the applicant arrears of pay as a result of fixation done vide order dated 04.07.2014 after quashing the proforma fixation along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of due till the actual date of payment.

3.

Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper under the circumstances of the case, may also be passed.

4.

Cost of the present case.”

“6.

I have gone through the judgment in P V Sunilkumar (Supra). It appears that one P V Sunilkumar, Pahrmacist Grade-II had filed an Original Application No. 456 of 2007 in CAT, Ernakulum Bench seeking promotion from the date on which his immediate junior was promoted. The Tribunal considered the rival contentions of the parties and allowed the O.A. directing the respondents to promote the applicant from the date of his junior was promoted with all consequential benefits pursuance to such promotion. Admittedly, in the said case, repeated representations were submitted by the applicant to correct the mistake and ultimately the Tribunal considered his claim and found that the delay in correction of the mistake was attributable solely due to inaction on part of department and therefore granted the consequential benefits also. In the said case, the department placed reliance upon Paragraph 228 of IREM Vol. I and contended that no arrears of pay shall be payable to an incumbent who was ordered to be promoted, for the reason that, he had not shouldered any responsibilities of the higher post. The Tribunal found that the delay was attributable to inaction on the part of authorities in rectifying the mistake and held that for the said reason, the applicant should not be made to suffer the consequences thereof. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition.

7.

I have also gone through Paragraph 228 of IREM Vol. I which reads as under:

228. Erroneous Promotions. (1) Sometimes due to administrative error, staff are over-looked for promotion to higher grades could be

either on account of wrong assignment of relative seniority of the eligible staff or full facts not being placed before the competent authority at the time of ordering promotion or some other reasons. Broadly, loss of seniority due to the administrative errors can be of two types:

(i)

Where a person has not been promoted at all because of administrative error; and

(ii)

Where a person has been promoted but not on the date from which he would have been promoted but for the administrative error. Each such case should be dealt with on its merits. The staff who have lost promotion on account of administrative error should on promotion be assigned correct seniority vis a vis their juniors already promoted, irrespective of the date of promotion. Pay in the higher grade on promotion may be fixed proforma at the proper time. The enhanced pay may be allowed from the date of actual promotion. No arrears on this account shall be payable as he did not shoulder the duties and responsibilities of the higher posts.

8.

From the perusal of above provisions, it appears that if an employee is deprived of his promotion on account of administrative error and later on he was promoted from the date his junior was promoted, he would not be paid enhanced pay on the ground that he had not actually shouldered the duties and responsibilities of the higher post.

9.

In the instant case, juniors to the applicant were initially promoted from the post of T.C./T.C.-I to the post of T.T.E. vide order dated 09.03.1981. On perusal of the letter dated 28.05.2010 (Annexure A-10 of RA), it appears that on the representations of the applicants, it was decided on 28.06.1996 to reconsider the seniority of the applicant and for giving him due promotion between 09.04.1981 to 08.04.1982. The applicant has also filed copies of several representations (Annexure A-12 of RA) which shows that he was pursuing his claim since he was deprived of his promotion but due to inaction on the part of authorities, the mistake was not rectified by them and the applicant was finally given notional promotion vide order dated 04.06.2010. The applicant has not been given enhanced pay from the date of actual promotion merely on the ground that he had not shouldered any duties and responsibilities of the higher post.

10.

Considering that facts that the claim of the applicant for seniority and promotion was initially considered by the respondents in the year 1996, the applicant had preferred several representations but no heed was paid by the respondents and ultimately the mistake was rectified by issuing an order dated 04.06.2010, thus relying on the judgment of P V Sunilkumar (Supra), I am of the considered view that the applicant is also entitled to all consequential benefits of enhanced pay and allowances on subsequent promotions as the delay in rectifying the mistake was attributable to the inaction on the part of authorities and for the such reason the applicant should not be made to suffer the consequences thereof.

11.

Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay all consequential benefits including pay and allowances consequent upon promotion of the applicant from the date of his immediate junior was promoted…”

(emphasis supplied)