ORDER
V.K. Bali, J. (Chairman)
1. R. C. Lahoria, the applicant herein, who belongs to Scheduled Caste category, was appointed in the capacity of Inspector of Works Grade-III (Rs.425-700) in 1980 and was promoted as Inspector of Works Grade-I (Rs.700-900/2000-3200) in 1981, but was assigned seniority w.e.f. 4.8.1983. When on the basis of seniority so fixed, he was not promoted to the next grade of Rs. 840-1040/2375-3500 w.e.f. 8.9.1987, he approached this Tribunal in OA No. 48/1991. From the order passed by this Tribunal dated 18.4.1995 (Annexure A-4) in the OA aforesaid, it appears his grievance was that he was not considered for promotion to the next higher post on the basis of his seniority as Inspector of Works Grade-I, and instead the respondents had treated him to be junior to others based on his seniority in the initial recruitment grade of Inspector of Works Grade-III. He filed the Application seeking following directions:
a) A direction to the respondents to determine the applicant’s suitability for promotion to the grade Rs. 840-1040/2375-3500 (RPS) on 8.9.97 when his juniors were promoted overlooking his claims, and if found suitable, to grant him promotion from 8.9.87 with all consequential benefits including arrears for the period from 8.9.97 onwards.
b) A direction that since the applicant’s position is serial No. 129 in the Seniority List at Annexure A-III and since at least 155 general candidates junior to him have been called for the Group B selection announced by the notification dated 6.12.90, the applicant by virtue of his general seniority based on empanelment in the 1981 panel, should be allowed to appear in the selection for the unreserved vacancies alongwith the general candidates and given all benefits if selected.
This Tribunal noted that the controversy in issue was clinched by a Full Bench decision by the Calcutta Bench in which judgment had been delivered on 21.2.1994. In fact, it appears that the applicant had himself filed MA No. 3585/94 praying that direction may be issued in terms of the Full Bench judgment to the respondents that he may be considered for promotion in accordance with his seniority based on regular appointment in the grade of Rs. 2000-3200 as Inspector of Works, pending final decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It was admitted during the course of arguments that the Full Bench decision of this Tribunal was relevant, and that being so, the Bench proceeded to dispose of the matter. The Tribunal observed that the judgment of Full Bench of the Calcutta Bench in Durga Charan Haldar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (CAT (FB) Vol.III 323) referred to an earlier Full Bench decision of the Hyderabad Bench in v. Lakshminarayanan v. Union of India and Ors. (OA No. 759/1987 decided on 27.2.1992 – CAT (FB) Vol.III 91). After so holding, the Tribunal observed as follows:
7. It is clear that the decision of the Full Bench in v. Lakshminarayanan’s case in respect of seniority is a final decision of that Bench, though the matter, admittedly, is pending in appeal before the Supreme Court. The Learned Counsel for the applicant has also produced a copy of a letter No. HPB/22640/CS/SC-ST dated 27.4.94 issued by the Chief Personnel Officer, Bombay to D.R.M. Jhansi and Ors. following the aforesaid Full Bench judgment rendered at Calcutta, in which it has been directed that the promotion to be made should be in accordance with paragraphs 23, 24 and 25 of the Full Bench judgment of the Hyderabad Bench in v. Lakshminarayanan’s case.
8. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the OA itself can now be disposed of with suitable directions to the respondents. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to consider the question of promotion of the applicant from the post of IOW Grade-I to the higher post in terms of paragraphs 23, 24 and 25 of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Tribunal rendered in v. Lakshminarayanan v. Union of India and Ors. (CAT (FB) Vol.III 91) making it absolutely clear that any decision by them in this regard will ultimately be subject to the decision of the Supreme Court before whom this matter is pending in appeal.
It is conceded position that the aforesaid judgment was implemented and in consequence thereof, the applicant was promoted to the grade of Rs. 2375-3500/7450-11500. The applicant has placed on record as Annexure A-1 office order dated 20.6.1997, which inter alia records as follows:
1. Shri R. C. Lahoria IOW-I Section Engineer (W) Gr. Rs. 2000-3200 (RPS) at present working under AIE GWL is promoted as CIOW/Sr. Section Engineer (W) Gr. Rs. 2375-3500 (RPS) and posted under AIE GWL as Incharge of Antri and Banmore Sleeper Factories Headquarter at GWL, against the post of CIOW transferred from Sithouli workshop and the post of IOW Gr.I released by Shri Lahoria is transferred to Sithouli Workshop.
2. The above order is subject to the condition that no DAR/SPE/Vig case is pending against the above employee. The above promotion is further provisional pending final decision of the civil appeal No. 2017/78 of UOI v. J.C. Mallick and Ors. and SLP against the CAT Bombay’s judgment dated 5.10.93 in O.A. No. 727 of Shri L. C. Awasthi v. UOI and 7 Ors. and also subject to the writ petition pending in various CAT’s and Supreme Court.
It is the case of the applicant that the order of his promotion with immediate effect was a mere farce as the Tribunal seems to have declined to adjudicate the relief of granting promotion in the grade of Rs. 840-1040/7450-11500 w.e.f. 8.9.1987. He, however, pleads that the order aforesaid is provisional and is liable to be changed in the eventuality mentioned therein. It is made out from the averments made in the Application itself that the applicant had filed yet another OA No. 3117/2002 seeking promotion w.e.f. 8.9.1987 but the same was dismissed being barred by limitation vide orders passed in December, 2002. Copy of the order aforesaid, however, has not been placed on records of the case. The prayer made in the Application reads as follows:
8.1 To allow the OA and direct the respondents by indicating the outcome of cases referred to in orders dated 18.4.1995 (Ann. A-4) and order dated 20.6.1997 (Ann. A-1), to finalise the promotion and seniority of petitioner in grade Rs. 840-1040/2375-3500/7450-11500 with effect from the date of juniors being given promotion read with constitutional provisions contained in Article 16(4-B) Constitution of India;
8.2 To grant any other appropriate relief as deemed just and proper by this Hon. Tribunal as per facts and circumstances of the case besides cost and expenses of the present litigation.
2. We have heard Shri H. P. Chakravorty, Learned Counsel representing the applicant, and with his assistance examined the records of the case. To a specific question put to him as to how the applicant is adversely affected by the respondents not indicating the outcome of the cases referred to in the order of his promotion passed pursuant to directions issued by this Tribunal in his OA No. 48/1991, the counsel has nothing whatsoever to state. It may be recalled that, this Tribunal while disposing of OA No. 48/1991 filed by the applicant had given direction to the respondents to settle the issue in light of the decision made by the Full Bench in v. Lakshminarayanan (supra), and if ultimately the Hon’ble Supreme Court may reverse the orders passed by the Tribunal, the applicant would only stand to lose both in the matter of seniority and promotion. It is absolutely apparent from the pleadings made in the Application and various orders referred to above, that the applicant is not satisfied with the orders passed by the respondents dated 20.6.1997, as he is of the view that his seniority should be fixed in the grade Rs. 840-1040/11450-11500 w.e.f. 8.9.1987, as would be clearly made out from para 4.5 of the Application and the various representation made by him from time to time, placed on records of the case. The applicant, it appears, is endeavouring to re-open a closed chapter in the guise of an innocuous prayer made by him to know the outcome of cases referred to in the orders of promotion. We may reiterate that the applicant lost his cause of seniority w.e.f. 8.9.1987 in grade Rs. 840-1040/7450-11500 when OA No. 3117/2002 was dismissed by this Tribunal.
3. Finding merits in this Application, we dismiss the same in limine.