Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2020) 10 CAT CK 0759

Shreshtha Suri & Anr. vs Union Of India & Anr.

Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi · Decided on 27 October 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman · Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)
CASE NUMBER
OA No.1634/2020

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

12 paragraphs · 603 words

Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman:-

The first applicant is the wife of late Shri Balraj Suri and the second applicant is his son. Shri Balraj Suri was selected and appointed in the Indian Information Service in the year 1967. In the context of his promotion to the post of Senior Administrative Grade (SAG)-I, he filed OA No.2084/1999, and that was disposed of directing the respondents to take steps for fixing of his seniority in the SAG and to pass orders for fixation of his seniority. In compliance with the same, the respondents passed an order dated 09.03.2001 stating that Shri Suri was superseded by his juniors at the time of his promotion to SAG of IIS Group 'A' on the basis of recommendations of DPC that was held on 05th and 6th June, 1986. Thereafter, Shri Balraj Suri went on making representations and ultimately, he retired from service on 31.07.2005. He passed away on 04.11.2009.

2.

The applicants went on pursuing the issue pertaining to seniority of Late Shri Balraj Suri. Recently, a representation was made on 20.01.2020, vis-à-vis the orders dated 04.09.2001 and 09.03.2001. This OA is filed challenging the orders dated 04.09.2001 and 09.03.2001. Prayer is also made to strike out the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting's file notings, obtained through RTI dated 01.05.2018.

3.

We heard the applicant no.2 Shri Pallav Suri, who argued the case in person and Shri N.D. Kaushik, learned counsel for the respondents, in detail through video conferencing:

4.

The issue pertains to the promotion of Late Shri Balraj Suri. The denial of promotion took place way back in the 1996. Long after that he filed OA No.2084/1999. In compliance with the orders passed in the OA, the respondents issued a memorandum dated 09.03.2001 which reads as under:-

"The representation dated 31.05.1999 of Shri Balraj Suri, a Senior Grade officer of IIS Group 'A', presently working as Addl. DG, NSD, AIR, New Delhi regarding fixation of his seniority in Senior Administrative Grade of IIS Group 'A' has been examined in the Ministry of pursuance of the orders dated 01.12.2000 of the Principal Bench of Hon'ble CAT in O.A. No.2084/99 in the case of Shri Balraj Suri vs. Union of India.

2.

In this context, it is stated that Shri Sri was superseded by junior officers at the time of his promotion to SAG of IIS Group 'A' on the basis of the recommendations of a duly constituted DPC which was held in PSC on 5th and 6th June, 1996 to consider promotion of suitable officers to SAG of IIS Group 'A'. As per IIS Group 'A' Rules, 1987, the method of promotion to SAG of the service is on seniority-cum- merit basis wherein officers with superior gradings are placed above officers with lower gradings.

3.

In view of the position explained above, there is no ground for changing the seniority of Shri Balraj Suri in the Administrative Grade of IIS Group 'A'.

4.

This has the approval of Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting."

The same was reiterated on 04.09.2001.

4.

In case Shri Balraj Suri had any reservation/objection vis- a-vis the order dated 09.03.2001, he was supposed to challenge the same at the relevant point of time. However, he did not do so. After his retirement also he did not challenge the same. On merits also, once the denial of promotion to him in 1996 to SAG was on the basis of recommendations of the DPC, there is nothing which anybody can do.

5.

We do not find any merit in the OA. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.