Ravinder Singh vs Union Of India And Ors

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The applicant joined the service of Central Water Engineering, Group -A Service as Assistant Executive Engineer in the year 1972. Thereafter, he was promoted to the posts of Executive Engineer, Dy. Director in the Central Water Commission (for short, CWC) and Director by 1992. He became Chief Engineer on 06.02.1998. For promotion to the post of Member/HAG,CWC, a DPC was held in July, 2007 and April, 2008. However, the applicant was declared 'not fit' by the DPC and his juniors were promoted.

The applicant filed various OAs, before this Tribunal one after the other; in the context of getting the ACRs upgraded. Ultimately, it was in OA No. 2545/2010 that this Tribunal, through its order dated 18.05.2011, directed that a review DPC be conducted to consider the case of the applicant for HAG with reference to the original DPC of 2007-2008. It was directed that in case the applicant is found fit by the review DPC, the benefit of notional promotion shall be extended to him, but without any back wages; and that the notional promotion would count only towards calculation of increments and thereafter the pension. The review DPC was conducted accordingly and through an order dated 16.07.2014, he was promoted to HAG w.e.f. the date on which his immediate junior Shri A. K. Bajaj has assumed the charge in HAG.

The applicant filed OA 207/2014 claiming that he was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Chairman of CWC, since his junior Shri A. K. Bajaj was promoted to that post. The OA was disposed of on 15.09.2014 directing that the request of the applicant for the post of Chairman, CWC w.e.f. the date on which his junior Mr. A. K. Bajaj was given promotion, be considered within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. Stating to be in compliance with the same, the respondents passed an order dated 17.12.2014 informing the applicant that he cannot be extended the benefit of promotion, since he retired from service, and that order passed by the Tribunal dated 18.05.2011 is fully complied with. The same is challenged in this OA.

The applicant contends that once he has been promoted to HAG, albeit on notional basis, he became entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Chairman, CWC w.e.f. date on which his junior Mr. A. K. Bajaj was promoted. He submits that there is absolutely no basis for denying him, the said relief.

Respondents filed the counter affidavit opposing the OA. It is stated that the relief granted to the applicant in OA 2545/2010 was limited to the one of considering his case for promotion to HAG and to grant the benefit of increments and revision of pension, in case is found fit, and that having been done, he cannot claim any further relief. Other contentions are also urged.

We heard Mr. B. K. Berera, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Gyanendra Singh and Mr. V. S. R. Krishna, learned counsel for the respondents.

This is the 5th or 6th OA filed by the applicant in pursuit of remedies, ever since he has been denied promotion to HAG. He was successful ultimately in OA 2545/2010. The Tribunal allowed the OA and directed the respondents to convene a review DPC to consider the case of the applicant for promotion to HAG. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:-

"13. On the basis of above consideration the OA succeeds. The Respondents are directed to hold a review DPC for the years 2007 and 2008 to consider the Applicant for promotion by ignoring the ACRs for the period 2003-04 and 2005-06 and instead consider two ACRs immediately preceding the last ACR which was considered by the DPCs. This exercise would be completed within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The Applicant would be eligible only for notional promotion, if found fit by the review DPC. He would not be eligible for back wages and the notional promotion would count towards calculation of increments, which would result in re-calculation of his pension. There will be no orders as to costs."

From this, it becomes clear that in case the applicant is declared fit by the review DPC, he is entitled to be extended the benefit of notional increments, which, in turn, would have their effect on pension, and nothing more. The fact that the applicant retired from service was clearly known to all. In case the applicant was of the view that he is entitled to be considered for notional promotion to the post of Chairman also, necessary relief in that behalf ought to have been prayed for. That not having been done, the concept of constructive res judicata steps in.

Further, had the relief granted by the Tribunal been an open ended one, we would have considered the feasibility of taking the notional benefit extended to the applicant in the form of promotion to HAG, to its logical conclusion. However, almost in the form of nailing further action or steps in the entire episode, the Tribunal held that he would not be entitled for any relief other than notional increment and recalculation of pension. It is not, as if, that his retirement from service or the promotion of A. K. Bajaj to the post of Chairman, were the events which have taken place at a later point of time. They existed when OA 2545 of 2010 was being disposed of.

We do not find any merit in the OA. It is accordingly dismissed.