Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 970 (DEL)

UOI v. LEKH RAJ SINGH

2006-05-25

MUKUL MUDGAL, P.K.BHASIN

body2006
MUKUL MUDGAL, J. ( 1 ) RULE DB. With the consent of the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing. ( 2 ) THE respondent claimed before the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short the CAT ) that he joined Northern Railway, Moradabad, on 13-7-1959 as a clerk Grade II and was promoted as a Sub-Head w. e. f. 27-6-1975. For this date of his promotion he ;had relied upon inter-office letter dated 5-9-83 of the divisional Accounts Officer, Northern Railways, Moradabad wherein his date of promotion was stated to be 27-6-1975. According to the respondent this date of his promotion was deliberately suppressed because he had incurred the ire and wrath of his superior and he (respondent) was a scheduled caste and wrong entry in his service proof was made. This letter dated 5-9-83 came to his knowledge on 11-12-98. Since the petitioners herein did not rectify his date of promotion in the Service Book the respondent filed a petition before the CAT for a direction to the petitioners to rectify the date of his promotion as 27-6-75. The CAT allowed that petition view its order dated 11-4-2002 and directed the government to rectify the date of promotion of the respondent on 27-6-75 and to give his arrears of salary etc. ( 3 ) THE present writ petition challenges the order dated 11th April, 2002 passed by the CAT. The issue involved in the present writ petition is with regard to the direction given by the Tribunal to the respondents to rectify the discrepancy which has crept into the letters issued by them in respect of the date of the respondents promotion to the post of Sub-Head in the pay scale of rs. 425-700. ( 4 ) THE impugned order has given the benefit of a letter dated 5-9-83 sent by the Divisional Accounts Officer in which it was mentioned that the respondent was promoted as a Sub-Head (Clerk) in the pay-scale of Rs. 425-700 w. e. f. 27-6-75 and it was the case of the petitioners that this was a typographical error where the date was erroneously mentioned as 27-6-75 instead of 27-5-78. The case of the petitioners is that there was no other document which shows that the respondent was promoted w. e. f. 27-6-75. The Tribunal s order is based solely on the letter of the Divisional Accounts Officer dated 5-9-83. The case of the petitioners is that there was no other document which shows that the respondent was promoted w. e. f. 27-6-75. The Tribunal s order is based solely on the letter of the Divisional Accounts Officer dated 5-9-83. No cogent reasons have been given by the Tribunal to reject the arguments advanced by the petitioners herein as to the effect of the said letter. The learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Krishna seeks indulgence of this court to point out that in a suit filed by the respondent himself in the court of Additional Munsif, moradabad the prayer was for promotion w. e. f. 1-5-76 and not for 27-6-75 which he would have claimed if actually he had been promoted w. e. f. 27-6-75. Since the suit was filed in 1980 in our view the omission to promotion w. e. f. 27-6-75 assumes significance and makes the order of the Tribunal vulnerable. ( 5 ) HOWEVER, we are of the view that taking into account the fact that the respondent belongs to a reserved category and had retired in the year 1992 and is of 72 years of age, while not approving the reasoning of the Tribunal this is not a fit case for interference as the difference in pension is minimal. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed and disposed of with the above observation. Interim order stands vacated. .