IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.314 of 1985 Date of decision: 10.9.2008 Sergeant, Devassy ......Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. B.S. Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate for the Union of India. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J . 1. This judgment will dispose of CWP No.314 of 1985 and 4375 of 1986 as similar questions of law have been raised on similar facts in both these cases. However, for the convenience sake facts are extracted from CWP No.314 of 1985. 2. The petitioner was a Combatant member of Indian Air Force and was holding the rank of Sergeant in Group I Trades of W/S Fit (C ) i.e. Workshop Fitter Copper-smith), and stationed in No.12 Wing Air Force Station, Chandigarh at the time of filing of the writ petition. The petitioner was directly enrolled in Group I allied trade of C & SMW (i.e. Copper-smith and Sheet Metal Worker) now called as Workshop Fit (Copper-smith) on 29.12.1961 and thereafter he was promoted to the rank of Corporal on 29.12.1966 in accordance with the Regulations of Air Force. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the rank of Sergeant on 1.1.1980. The petitioner also passed JWO Promotion Examination in the month of September, 1980, the substantive date for the rank of Sergeant was fixed as 7.4.1982 vide order dated 8.11.1983. It is further averred in the writ petition that respondents No.7 to 23 are all remustered Airmen to Group I allied trades direct from the lower groups and in their cases the entire length of service in lower groups is counted for the purpose of further promotions in the remustered trade. According to him, all these remustered Airmen are junior to the Direct Entry Airmen who are directly enrolled in the First Group. Hence, the petitioner is senior to all these respondents. 3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Air Headquarters formulated a comprehensive policy on the subject of Promotion Policy and the seniority for the Remustered Airmen vide letter dated 7.12.1979 (Annexure P-5) and under this policy, all the Remustered Airmen to non- allied trades were promoted to the rank of Sergeant if they have completed 14 years and 6 months' total service as on 1.12.1979. Respondents No.7 to 23 were given the benefit under the aforesaid policy and were promoted to the rank of Sergeant w.e.f. 1.1.1980. As per the petitioner, since the respondents were given the benefit and brought in line with the petitioner who had more length of service and as they i.e. petitioners and respondents, were promoted on 1.1.1980, they are called contemporary. The substantive Sergeant promotion of the petitioner and respondent No.7 was released on 8.11.1983 and as per this letter, all the respondents have been shown junior to the petitioner. The date of substantive rank of the respondents is later on than the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the date of release of substantive rank is based on eligibility criteria vide Annexure P-6. 4. Respondent No.4 circulated the promotion panel for the year 1984-85 on 13.10.1984 for the trade of Workshop Fit (C ) and the name of the petitioner whose actual date of substantive promotion to the rank of Sergeant is senior to all the respondents was omitted from the list/panel. According to the petitioner, respondents No.7 to 23 have been given an ante-date seniority of two years from the date of substantive rank and thereby the petitioner has been superseded whose name has not appeared in the promotion panel (Annexure P-10). The petitioner made a representation dated 10.11.1984 to the Competent Authority vide Annexure P-11. However, in the meantime respondents No.7 and 8 on 1.12.1984 were promoted while respondents No.9 and 10 were promoted on 1.2.1985. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that the release of promotion panel for the year 1984-85 promoting respondents No.7 to 10 and grant of seniority of ante-date to the respondents Nos.7 to 23 ignoring the petitioner who is senior, is illegal and against the principles of natural justice and contrary to law and thus, the petitioner has prayed that the writ of certiorari be issued quashing Annexure P-10, promotion panel and promotions of respondents No.7 to 10 and further a writ of Mandamus be issued directing the respondents to withdraw the ante-date seniority given to Airmen remustered to allied Group I trades of W/S Fit (c ) and release the promotions as per the actual date of substantive rank of Sergeant with a further direction to prepare the fresh promotion panel according to seniority and promote the petitioner to the rank of Junior Warrant Officer according to his seniority. 6. The writ petition has been contested by the respondents by filing written statement stating therein that no person junior to the petitioner has been promoted to the rank of Junior Warrant Officer. It has been further stated that the petitioner did not pass the requisite Sergeant Promotion Examination within eight years of his service as per Air Force Instructions, thereby losing about four years of service and was promoted w.e.f. 1.1.1980 along with Airmen enrolled in 1965. The junior most direct entry Airman with 4.11.1973 seniority was promoted w.e.f. 1.1.1980, meaning thereby that the direct entry Airmen enrolled on 4.11.1965 were promoted along with the petitioner and had the petitioner passed his pre- requisite Sergeant Promotion Examination in time, he would have also got his Sergeant Promotion by August, 1972, along with his contemporaries. It has further been stated that the promotion policy has been revised from time to time by the Air Headquarters and as per this policy the remustered airmen were given the benefit of ante-date seniority, to the extent of loss of seniority, subject to the ante-date period not exceeding two years due to the implementation of Annexures P-2 and P-3 and their seniority was refixed accordingly. It is also stated in the written statement that all the remustered airmen are senior to the direct-entry airmen having normal career in the length of service. Thus, it was stated that the benefit of seniority of ante-date seniority of two years has been given to the respondents legally and as per the policy of the respondents and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. It is relevant to mention at this stage that the petitioner has not challenged Annexure P-6 i.e. the relevant policy/instructions in fixing the seniority of the remustered airmen vide which they have been given the benefit of ante-date of service for seniority for next promotion equivalent to the loss suffered by him owing to the provisions of promotion policy, namely RD/600 dated 20.11.1959 subject to a maximum of two years. Even otherwise, the promotion policy made by the employer for its employee cannot be scrutinized by this Court. Moreover, it is not disputed that by now, the petitioner has retired. In view of these facts, this Court is of the view that the question raised by the appellant in the writ petition is of academic nature only as no substantive relief can be granted to the petitioner because the petitioner has only challenged the promotion of the respondents and has further sought a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the promotion and no consequential benefits have been prayed for. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that he is entitled to the consequential benefits also even if he has not claimed the same in the writ petition. However, learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to substantiate his arguments 10. In view of this, I find no merit in both the writ petitions and the same are dismissed. September 10, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.4375 of 1986 Date of decision: 10.9.2008 Sergeant Neelakanta Panigrahi ......Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. B.N. Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate for the Union of India. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J . For orders, see CWP No.314 of 1985. September 10, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE