Dr. Shyam Lal vs Union Of India & Others

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The applicant was working in the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. In the year 2004, he was holding the post of Scientist 'F'. The steps for promotion to the next grade, i.e., Scientist 'G' were initiated in April 2004. Though the name of the applicant was considered and recommended by the Selection Committee, the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) did not clear the same. Correspondence issued in this behalf. In the meanwhile, the applicant retired from service on 31.01.2006. Though the Selection Committee met on 25.08.2006 and considered the case of the applicant also, but on finding that he was not in service, his name was not recommended.

The applicant made a representation ventilating his grievance. Through O.M. dated 27.07.2017, the respondents, narrated all the developments and expressed their inability to accede to his request. This O.A. is filed challenging the O.M. dated 27.07.2017.

The applicant contends that he was found fit by the Selection Committee and that there are no basis for the appointing authority to deny promotion to him. He further contends that the denial of promotion in the second round, only on the ground that he retired from service, cannot be countenanced.

We heard Dr. K S Chauhan, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Y P Singh, learned counsel for respondents, at the stage of admission, through video conferencing.

It is no doubt true that the name of the applicant was recommended by the Selection Committee for promotion to the post of Scientist 'G'. However, the ACC did not approve the recommendation and the issue remained at that. Though correspondence ensued in this behalf but there was no progress. In the meanwhile, the applicant retired from service. The Selection Committee considered the case of the applicant and other similarly situated candidates at a later stage. However, on finding that the applicant is not in service, his name was not recommended. Reference was made to the clause in the scheme, which prohibits the promotion of retired Scientists.

We find it difficult to entertain the O.A., for the reason that the cause of action, if at all, has accrued to the applicant in 2004 or at least sometime before his retirement. He has not chosen to pursue the proceedings at that stage and filed the present O.A. nearly after one and half decades. It is barred by latches and limitation.

Further the question of promoting the retired employee does not arise. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & others v. K K Vadera & others, 1990 AIR 442 held that promotions cannot be made retrospectively.

We do not find any merit in this O.A. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as costs.