W.P.(C).9793/2006 Page 1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9793-94/2006 Date of Decision 19th July, 2010 UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. S.P. Sharma, Adv. Versus LAKSHMI CHAND & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. A.K. Trivedi, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? : MOOL CHAND GARG, J(oral) 1. The petitioner has filed the aforesaid writ petition aggrieved by the directions given by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) vide order dated 17.09.2002 in OA No. 1272/1999 and order dated 16.08.2005 in MA No. 1233/2004 filed by the second respondent herein. 2. Vide impugned order dated 17.09.2002, the Tribunal set aside and quashed the promotion of respondent Nos.5 and 6 respectively to the post of Security Supervisor (SS), a post which requires five years service in the grade of Rs.800-1150/-. Directions were also given to the petitioner to convene a review DPC and to consider the claim of the second respondent for the vacancies which became available for promotion to the post of Security Supervisor (SS) as he was senior to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 within a period of three months from the receipt of the order. W.P.(C).9793/2006 Page 2 of 3 3. The petitioners in compliance with the aforesaid order held a review DPC and promoted Attar Singh, respondent No.5 and Nari Ram, respondent No.2, for vacancies of year 2001-02 and 2002-03 respectively. 4. On an application (MA No. 1233/2004) filed by respondent No.2 directions were also given by the Tribunal to the petitioner that the case of respondent No.2 be considered for promotion against the vacancy of the year 1996. 5. The petitioners while admitting that respondent No.2 was senior to respondent Nos. 4 and 5, have taken objection to the direction given vide order dated 16.08.2005 in MA No. 1233/2004 by stating that in 1996, there was no vacancy available on which promotion of the second respondent could be made inasmuch as one vacancy of the year 1992-93 was adjusted by reinstating Shri Krishan Kumar in accordance with the orders of the Tribunal dated 03.12.1999 with retrospective effect from 14.03.1996 while the other vacancy of the year 1993-94 stood abolished w.e.f. 13.03.2001. It is thus pleaded that since there was no vacancy available for the year 1996 the claim of second respondent is untenable. 6. It is not a disputed fact that the second respondent filed OA No. 2247/1997, wherein directions were given to the petitioner to consider the case of the respondent No.2 for promotion vide order dated 09.11.1998. At that time, vacancies for the year 1996 were very much available. However, the directions were not complied with compelling the said respondent to file OA No. 1272/1999, which was dismissed by the Tribunal on the principle of res judicata. However, the order of the Tribunal dismissing OA No. 1272/1999 was set aside by this Court when a writ petition was filed being CWP 212/2001 in the year 2001 with a direction given to the Tribunal to decide OA No. 1272/1999 on merits. 7. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the Tribunal has passed the order dated 17.09.2002 allowing the Original Application of the second respondent to the post of Security Supervisor. Further W.P.(C).9793/2006 Page 3 of 3 directions were given in MA 1233/2004 to consider the case of promotion of second respondent from 1996. 8. The learned counsel however could not dispute that once the respondent No.2 is eligible and senior to respondent Nos. 5 & 6 the claim of respondents ought to have been considered first before the case of respondent Nos. 5 & 6 was considered. Since the vacancy was available in 1996 when the said respondent was eligible for promotion, he is naturally eligible to be promoted since 1996. 9. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with no orders as to costs. CM No.7310/2006 (for stay) Interim orders, if any, stand vacated. Application stands disposed of. MOOL CHAND GARG, J JULY 19, 2010 PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J anb/dc