Devender Bhardwaj And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors

Permod Kohli, J

M.A. No.1003/2018 for joining together is allowed.

OA No.912/2018

The applicants are presently serving as Inspectors/Preventive Officers (POs). They claim to be eligible for promotion to the post of Superintendent of Customs (P). A seniority list of Inspectors/POs was put on the website of CBEC for promotion to the post of Superintendent of Customs (P). It is stated that to fill up the posts of Superintendent of Customs (P), the respondents initiated the process by calling vigilance clearance of eligible Inspectors/POs in respective Commissionerates. Promotion is to be made from the eligible Inspectors/POs posted in the respective Zones.

The applicants were not informed about their status after completion of the formalities for promotion to the post of Superintendent of Customs (P). The applicants came to know that their juniors were considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent of Customs (P). Names of such juniors are mentioned in para 4.5 of the OA. Later, another batch of juniors was considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent of Customs (P) and most of them were promoted vide order dated 23.06.2017 (Annexure A-4), ignoring the claim of the applicants. It is stated that the applicants have been denied consideration for promotion on the ground that they are short of two years of eligibility service prescribed under the recruitment rules. The applicants have completed six years of service as on 31.03.2017. The applicants rely upon DOP&T office memorandum No.14017/12/88-Estt.(RR) dated 25.03.1996 and claim that they are entitled to be considered for promotion when their juniors were promoted by granting them relaxation up to two years in the eligibility service.

The applicants rely upon various judgments, including the judgment passed in OA No.3405/2014 - Pankaj Narayan and others v Union of India & others, decided on 12.05.2016, as also judgments passed in OA Nos.1923/2016 and 2450/2016 (Annexure A-6). It is also mentioned that the aforesaid judgments passed by the Tribunal were challenged in writ petitions before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. In the writ petition filed against the order dated 12.05.2016 passed in OA No.3405/2014, while issuing notices vide order dated 29.11.2016, the Hon'ble High Court refused to grant any interim stay of the judgment, rather opined that the order of the Tribunal should be complied with, though promotion, if any, would be subject to outcome of the writ petition.

The applicants have also placed on record copy of a communication dated 09/10.12.2017 from the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) to the Chief Commissioner, CGST, Delhi Zone, for implementation of the directions of the Hon'ble High Court.

In view of the above, this OA is disposed of at the admission stage without going into the merit of the controversy with a direction to the respondents to examine the case of the applicants in the light of the judgment passed in OA No.3405/2014 and the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi referred to hereinabove, and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.