IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.32 of 2004 (S/B) R. Muthuswani ………..Petitioner Versus Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad & others ….Respondents Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Menka Tripathi, learned counsel (Central Govt.) for the respondents. Dated: 29th December, 2010 Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) In 1985 upon being selected through U.P.S.C., petitioner was appointed as Assistant Lecturer (Engineering & Surveying) in the Central Forest Rangers College, Chandrapur, Maharastra. According to the conditions of service applicable to the said appointment, petitioner could be promoted to the post of Lecturer (E & S) after putting in eight years regular service as Assistant Lecturer (E & S). Before the petitioner got an opportunity to serve eight years as Assistant Lecturer (E & S), the conditions of service were altered by the Department of Environment, Forest and Wildlife Scientific Group ‘A’ posts Rules, 1987. In terms thereof, petitioner lost an opportunity to be promoted to the post of Lecturer (E & S) upon serving eight years in the post of Assistant Lecturer (E & S). In 1994, petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor 2 on adhoc basis. In 1996, a reference was made to the Fifth Central Pay Commission to do something, in so far as, petitioner is concerned, inasmuch as, his promotional opportunities were closed by reason of change in the service conditions by the said Rules as stated above. Still then, nothing happened. In that background, petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal with two prayers. The first prayer was for a mandamus directing the respondents to provide at least two promotional avenues to the petitioner and persons similarly situate to that of the petitioner on the ground that earlier promotional avenues have been abolished or removed by changing the law. The second prayer was to declare that the said Rules are ultra-vires. When the matter was considered by the Tribunal, as appears from its order dated 3rd January, 2003, impugned in the present writ petition, the second prayer was not pressed. The Tribunal took note of the approach made by the Government to the Fifth Pay Commission and also took note of various judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and formed an opinion that a Central Government employee who has been substantively appointed, should be entitled to at least two promotions in his career. It then, disposed of the application with a direction upon Union of India to consider the case of petitioner and to take a final decision within three months from the date of a copy of the order is filed, which will include application of ACP Scheme in respect of the petitioner also, if no other way is found for giving relief. 2. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. We do not think that the Tribunal could do anything more than what it did, in relation to the first prayer that was made by the petitioner before the Tribunal. The first prayer made before the Tribunal was for laying down a policy of giving promotions to the petitioner and to similarly situated persons, which the Tribunal could not do. It could only direct the Union of India to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of promotion including under ACP Scheme, if any, and it did so. 4. The second prayer before the Tribunal was not considered and decided by the Tribunal. In the present writ petition, the second prayer made before the Tribunal has been repeated. However, it has not been stated that despite second prayer having been pressed before the Tribunal, the same was not considered by the Tribunal. In those circumstances, it would be appropriate on our part to proceed on the basis, that the second prayer was not pressed before the Tribunal. 5. After the order was passed by the Tribunal, it seems to be the contention of the petitioner that the respondent Academy wrote a letter to the Union of India to adapt two of the formulas mentioned therein for the purpose of redressing the grievances of the petitioner, but as yet the Union of India has not taken any decision thereon. 4 6. In the event, petitioner is satisfied that adaptation of any of those formulas would redress his grievances and he wants Union of India to select either of them, it would be incumbent upon the petitioner to compel Union of India to do so by re-approaching Central Administrative Tribunal for that aspect of the matter has not yet been dealt with by Central Administrative Tribunal and unless the same is dealt with by Central Administrative Tribunal, we would have no jurisdiction to deal with the same. We accordingly, dispose of the writ petition preserving liberty of the petitioner as indicated above. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 29.12.2010 29.12.2010 Arti