CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2020) 01 CAT CK 0050

Tara Prasad vs Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi And Ors

Central Administrative Tribunal · Decided on 21 January 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
L. Narasimha Reddy, J · A. K. Bishnoi, Member (A)
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Original Application No. 3556 Of 2014

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

7 paragraphs · 391 words

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

1.

The applicant was working as Inspector in the Transport Department of GNCTD. The DPC was held on 12.06.2014 to select the Inspectors for promotion to the post of Enforcement Officer (EO) on ad hoc basis. The name of the applicant was recommended and it is stated that no steps have been taken thereafter. This OA is filed, with a prayer to direct the respondents to convene the DPC for regular promotion to the post of EO and to effect promotion from the date on which the vacancies have arisen.

2.

The respondents have filed a counter affidavit, opposing the OA. It is stated that though the DPC was convened on 12.06.2014 for the purpose of ad hoc promotions, the Appointing Authority took the view that steps need to be taken for regular promotion and accordingly, the DPC was convened on 12.02.2015 and orders of promotion were issued on 26.03.2015.

3.

We heard Shri J.S. Mann, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Amit Anand, learned counsel for the respondents.

4.

The grievance of the applicant was about the delay in convening the DPC for regular promotions. The circumstances, under which the respondents convened the DPC on 12.06.2014 for ad hoc promotion, are not available before us. However, the grievance of the applicant stood redressed during the pendency of the OA. DPC for regular promotion was conducted and on 26.03.2015, and the applicant was promoted along with other candidates, who were found fit.

5.

Though the applicant claims that the promotion should have been effected from the date on which the vacancy existed, we find it difficult to accept that. It is only when an Inspector, who is junior to the applicant, was promoted with effect from an earlier date that he can feel aggrieved. There is nothing in law, which ordains that the DPC must be held as soon as the vacancy arises. Much would be depend upon the administrative exigencies. An employee will have a right to be considered for promotion as and when the process takes place, but not the right to insist on being promoted with effect from a particular date.

6.

We, therefore, dispose of the OA, taking note of the fact that the applicant has already been promoted as Enforcement Officer on 26.03.2015.  There shall be no order as to costs.