Case Note & Summary
The Union of India and another (petitioners) challenged the judgment and order dated 23rd January 2001 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in Original Application No. 601 of 2001. The CAT had declared the criteria adopted by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for assessment of candidates for promotion to the post of Principal Head of Department (PHOD) in the railways as arbitrary. The CAT further held that the respondent (original applicant) was entitled to promotion to the post of PHOD and directed the conduct of a review DPC to promote the respondent with effect from the date his juniors were promoted, with all consequential benefits. The promotion was directed to be notional from 8th December 1999, and arrears were to be paid from the date of the review DPC. The High Court, by order dated 11th October 2002, issued Rule and granted ad interim relief, which was confirmed on 13th January 2003. The respondent had retired from service in the meanwhile, but the court noted that retirement did not render the petition infructuous as the respondent would be entitled to consequential benefits like arrears and revision of pension. The High Court heard the learned counsel for the parties and upheld the CAT's order, dismissing the petition.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Promotion - Arbitrary Criteria - Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) - The criteria adopted by the DPC for assessment of candidates for promotion to the post of Principal Head of Department (PHOD) in the railways was declared arbitrary by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The High Court upheld the CAT's decision, holding that the criteria were arbitrary and directed a review DPC to promote the respondent with notional promotion from 8th December 1999 and arrears from the date of review DPC. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the criteria adopted by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for assessment of candidates for promotion to the post of Principal Head of Department (PHOD) in the railways was arbitrary.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the CAT's order dated 23rd January 2001. The rule was discharged with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Arbitrary criteria for promotion
- Review DPC
- Notional promotion
- Consequential benefits
- Administrative law
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (03) 85
Writ Petition No. 2167 of 2002
Smt. V. K. Tahilramani, Acting C.J., M. S. Sonak, J.
Mr. Suresh Kumar for Petitioner, Mr. G. K. Masand i/b. Mr. Ajeet Manwani for Respondent
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) declaring the criteria adopted by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for promotion to the post of Principal Head of Department (PHOD) as arbitrary.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners (Union of India) sought to quash the CAT's order directing a review DPC and promotion of the respondent with consequential benefits.
Filing Reason
The petitioners challenged the CAT's order dated 23rd January 2001 which declared the DPC criteria arbitrary and directed promotion of the respondent.
Previous Decisions
The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in Original Application No. 601 of 2001 declared the DPC criteria arbitrary and directed a review DPC for promotion of the respondent with notional promotion from 8th December 1999 and arrears from the date of review DPC.
Issues
Whether the criteria adopted by the DPC for assessment of candidates for promotion to the post of PHOD was arbitrary.
Submissions/Arguments
Mr. Suresh Kumar for the petitioners argued in support of the petition.
Mr. G. K. Masand for the respondent submitted that retirement does not render the petition infructuous as the respondent is entitled to consequential benefits.
Ratio Decidendi
The criteria adopted by the DPC for assessment of candidates for promotion to the post of PHOD was arbitrary, and the respondent was entitled to promotion with notional benefits from the date his juniors were promoted.
Judgment Excerpts
The challenge in this petition is to the impugned judgment and order dated 23rd January 2001 made by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in Original Application No. 601 of 2001.
The CAT has further held that the respondent (original applicant before the CAT) was entitled for promotion to the post of PHOD and has directed for conduct of review DPC in order to promote the respondent to the post of PHOD with effect from the date his juniors were promoted with all consequential benefits.
Procedural History
The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) passed the impugned judgment and order on 23rd January 2001 in Original Application No. 601 of 2001. The Union of India filed Writ Petition No. 2167 of 2002 in the Bombay High Court challenging the CAT's order. On 11th October 2002, the High Court issued Rule and granted ad interim relief, which was confirmed on 13th January 2003. The respondent retired from service during the pendency of the petition. The High Court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 19th March 2018, dismissing the petition.
