Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Union of India through the General Manager, Ordnance Factory Ambarnath, challenged an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, which directed the petitioner to consider and grant promotion to the respondent, B.R. More, to the post of Master Craftsman from the date his juniors were promoted, with all consequential benefits including pay fixation, arrears, and pension. The respondent was appointed as Labourer 'B' on 17th September, 1976 and superannuated on 31st October, 2004 after over 28 years of service. He started receiving pension based on a basic pay of Rs.5000 per month in the pay scale of Rs.4000-8000. The petitioner introduced a restructuring scheme dated 13th August, 2003, under which about 106 staff, including the respondent, became entitled to promotion from Highly Skilled Grade to Master Craftsman in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000. The petitioner also placed about 180 highly skilled industrial employees in the grade of Master Craftsman with effect from 20th May, 2003 under the scheme. The respondent's name appeared in the seniority list dated 31st December, 2003. However, he was not given upgradation under the scheme. He made a representation on 10th September, 2004 before retirement, but no action was taken. After retirement, he sent a letter dated 14th July, 2005 seeking interview. The respondent claimed that the same benefit had been extended to others, including his juniors, retrospectively, and he was ignored. The Tribunal allowed his Original Application. The High Court, after hearing arguments, dismissed the petition, holding that the delay in consideration was attributable to the petitioner and not the respondent, and that the respondent was entitled to the promotion and consequential benefits.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Promotion - Restructuring Scheme - Delay Attributable to Employer - The respondent, a retired employee, sought promotion to Master Craftsman under a restructuring scheme dated 13th August, 2003. The Tribunal directed the petitioner to consider and grant promotion from the date his juniors were promoted. The High Court upheld the order, holding that the delay in consideration was attributable to the petitioner, not the respondent, and that the respondent was entitled to consequential benefits including pay fixation and arrears. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent was entitled to promotion to the post of Master Craftsman under the restructuring scheme dated 13th August, 2003, and whether the delay in consideration was attributable to the petitioner.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, upholding the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal directing the petitioner to consider and grant promotion to the respondent to the post of Master Craftsman from the date his juniors were promoted, with all consequential benefits including pay fixation, arrears, and pension.
Law Points
- Promotion
- Restructuring Scheme
- Delay Attributable to Employer
- Upgradation
- Pensionary Benefits
