AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Shri S. K. Singh Vashisth, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Vimal Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondents, are present and heard.
The instant original application has been filed seeking following relief:
“(i) issue an order or direction to to the respondents to quash impugned seniority list dated 24.07.2006, the order dated 29-9-2008 and order dated 18.09.2006 passed by respondents no. 2 and further directed to respondents to place the applicant just above to Ram Das C.M.D Grade I in the seniority list of grade I in the interest of justice.
(b) issue an order and direction to the respondents to pay the other consequential benefits to the applicant after correcting the mistake of his seniority when it becomes due and ACP and MACP benefits to the applicant
iii) issue an order or direction to respondents which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case,
IV) Award cost in favour of the applicant.
The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is currently working as a Driver Grade II at the Station Health Organisation in New Cantt, Allahabad. He started his government service as a Cleaner on 11.01.1980 in the 5011 Army Supply Core at Jalandhar and was promoted to Driver Grade II on 02.04.1983. On 14.10.1991, he was transferred to his current posting. Over the years, several seniority lists were issued, but his position kept changing without any valid reason. In 2000, he was listed at Serial No. 52, and in 2006, he appeared at Serial No. 8, but was wrongly shown in a lower post (Driver Ordinary Grade), which was actually a demotion. He raised several complaints about these mistakes. The Ministry of Defence had already decided in 2001 to introduce a four-grade structure for Civil Motor Drivers, which was to be applied from 26.03.2003. However, this new structure was not properly followed. As a result, the applicant was unfairly denied promotion. Meanwhile, a junior employee, Mr. Ram Das, got promoted twice within just six days and also received financial benefits under the ACP scheme, while the applicant was left out, even though he was qualified. Applicant was promoted in grade II in 1983 while Ram Das was promoted in Driver Grade II in 1991. Hence, the instant O.A.
Per contra, respondents have filed their Counter Affidavit refuting the facts disclosed in the OA and submitted that the applicant namely Shri K.P. Singh, was not eligible for promotion to Driver Grade I due to cadre restructuring in the Army Medical Corps (AMC), and as per the new policy, drivers in AMC are not entitled to the ACP scheme. They claim that Shri Singh’s placement and promotion were in line with official records and policies. His earlier promotions, including one in May 2008 from Driver Ordinary Grade to Driver Grade II, were based on the existing rules. While he had received the first ACP benefit in 1999, it was later withdrawn due to cadre restructuring introduced in 2003. The claim that he was unfairly demoted is denied, as the changes were only in job titles, not pay or rank. The respondents also assert that promotions of seniors like Ram Das do not automatically entitle the applicant to the same, and all actions taken were in accordance with Government policy after due consideration.
A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the applicant controverting the facts disclosed in the Counter Affidavit mentioning therein that the applicant deserves a promotion because his junior, Ram Das, was promoted quickly—from Ordinary Driver in July 1991 to Driver Grade I within a year—while the applicant was overlooked. He disagrees with the respondents' claim of a three-grade promotion system, pointing out that the Government of India clearly introduced a four-grade system on 9 April 2001, which applies to all Civil Motor Drivers, including those in the Army Medical Corps. He further argued that the ACP scheme (Assured Career Progression) is a separate time-based benefit and not the same as a promotion, so it cannot be denied just because of cadre restructuring. The applicant also strongly denies that Ram Das is senior to him and supports this with official seniority lists. He claims that giving Ram Das two quick promotions while denying him the same is unfair and goes against government rules.
We have heard the rival submissions of the parties.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant should be promoted because his junior, Ram Das, was promoted quickly from Ordinary Driver to Driver Grade I, while he was unfairly left behind. He disagrees with the claim that only a three-grade system applies, pointing out that the Government introduced a four-grade system on 9 April 2001 for all Civil Motor Drivers, including in the Army Medical Corps. He further argued that respondents’ claim about restructuring is wrong and illegal because it was prevalent in defence from 2001.
Submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that just because Ram Das, who they claim is junior to the applicant and he received promotion, it does not automatically give the applicant the right to be promoted in the same manner or at the same time. They maintain that each promotion is based on individual eligibility, availability of vacancies, and other service conditions, not merely on comparison with others. According to them, all decisions regarding the applicant’s seniority, promotions, and ACP benefits were taken in line with the Government's policies and after proper evaluation by the competent authority. They further emphasize that the restructuring and related actions were carried out uniformly and lawfully, and that the applicant’s claims do not hold merit in view of these procedures.
We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the entire records.
It is evident from the records that the applicant has been in continuous government service since 11.01.1980, Mr. Ram Das who was junior to the applicant received two promotions within a short time span. Government of India had issued a clear order on 09.04.2001 introducing a four-grade promotional structure for Civilian Motor Drivers, effective from 26.03.2003, which was to be implemented uniformly across all services, including the Army Medical Corps. This structure was not properly followed by the respondents, and instead, applicant was erroneously reverted to a lower post, despite being eligible for promotion to Driver Grade I.
Respondents have not cited any policy or order for denying the promotion and service benefits to the applicants.
Upon thorough perusal of the records and due consideration of the submissions made by both parties, it is found that the four-grade promotional structure notified by the Government of India in 2001 was indeed applicable to all civilian motor drivers across the defence services. The fact that the applicant’s junior, Mr. Ram Das, was promoted while the applicant was not, indicates discrimination between them. The applicant has served for more than 38 years without receiving the due promotional or financial benefits. Hence, O.A. is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, O.A. is allowed. Impugned seniority list dated 24.07.2006, the order dated 29-9-2008 and order dated 18.09.2006 are hereby quashed to the extent that the name of the applicant is missing in its due place. Respondents are directed to review the seniority and promotion issue in light of the four-grade structure of 2001 for the applicant and place the applicant in the appropriate place notionally and to grant all benefits to the applicant on notional basis till his retirement and fix his pension accordingly taking into account his notional promotion. It is clarified that seniority fixed vide order(s) dated 24.07.2006, 29-9-2008 and 18.09.2006 in respect of other persons will not be disturbed. The above exercise must be completed within a period of three months from the date of receiving certified copy of the order. All associated M.As stand disposed of. No costs.