Central Administrative Tribunal - ErnakulamK.T Kanakarajan vs Union Of India on 28 January, 2013CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
                         ERNAKULAM BENCH

                  Original Application No. 996 of 2012

                Monday, this the 28th day of January, 2013

CORAM:

       Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.R. Raman, Judicial Member
       Hon'ble Mr. K. George Joseph, Administrative Member

K.T Kanakarajan, Administrative Officer,
Service Tax Division, Central Excise Bhavan,
Kathrikadavu, Cochin-682 017.                          .....     Applicant

(By Advocate - Mr. C.S.G. Nair)

                                 V e r s u s

1.   Union of India, represented by the Secretary,
     Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi-110 001.

2.   Chairman, Central Board of Excise & Customs,
     North Block, New Delhi-110 001.

3.   Chief Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs,
     Central Revenue Buildings, I.S. Press Road, Cochin-682 018.

4.   Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs,
     Central Revenue Buildings, I.S. Press Road,
     Cochin-682 018.                                   .....  Respondents

(By Advocate - Mr. Sunil Jacob Jose, SCGSC)

     This application having been heard on 16.1.2013, the Tribunal on

28.01.2013 delivered the following:

                               O R D E RBy Hon'ble Mr. K. George Joseph, Administrative Member-This Original Application has been filed by the applicant mainly for a

direction to promote him as Chief Accounts Officer based on the select panel

prepared by the DPC held for the year 2008-09 or subsequently with all

consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances.2.    The applicant was working as Administrative Officer Group-B

(Gazetted) with effect from 1.2.1995 and has completed more than 17 years

in the same cadre. He was eligible to be considered for promotion as Chief

Accounts Officer Group-A. DPC meetings for promotion to the post of Chief

Accounts Officer were conducted for 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 and 34,

21 and 12 Accounts Officers respectively were selected for promotion as

CAOs. The applicant might have been included in the select list for

promotion but no promotion orders have been issued.3.    The applicant contended that after stagnating in the post of

Administrative Officer for the last 17= years he was forced to retire in the

same grade for no fault of his own. The promotion oder of the applicant

might have been issued but not received by him. His representations at

Annexures A9, A10, A11 and A13 have not yet been replied to. As per

promotion order at Annexure A12 many of his juniors have been promoted

but the applicant whose name figures in the select panel for promotion as

CAO is never promoted. It is highly discriminatory and arbitrary.4.    The respondents submitted that being a 5th candidate in the zone of

consideration for the year 2008-09 the applicant might have been selected

but no promotion order was issued. The applicant's name does not figure in

the zone of consideration for the year 2009-2010. It shows that he might have

been promoted but he failed to get any promotion order. The DPC's proposal

for promotion to the post of CAO, Central Excise was submitted by CBEC to

the UPSC but the same was found deficient by the UPSC and has been

returned to the CBEC. The proposal is being re-referred to the UPSC as

intimated by letter dated 29.11.2012.5.    We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

records.6.    As per Annexure A5 the DPC's proposal for promotion of

Administrative Officers to the grade of CAOs was initiated in 2006 itself and

the same was referred to UPSC on 6th January, 2010. The UPSC has raised

certain queries returning the ACR folder of eligible officers vide their letter

dated 24.3.2010. The averment in paragraph 8 of the reply statement by the

respondents that the proposal is being forwarded to the UPSC shows that the

proposal has not yet been sent even after 18 months of UPSC returning the

proposal to CBEC. The respondents are expected to strictly adhere to the

model calender for DPC meetings for promotions so as to avoid frustration

among the officers. The respondents have not even cared to give a reply to

the applicant who has already retired on 30.11.2012 without getting

promotion. The inaction on the party of the respondents is deprecated. There

is no justification on the part of the respondents for not expediting the

promotion of the applicant. If the applicant failed to get any promotion order

the fault clearly lies with the respondents. The vague statement that the

applicant might have been selected being the 5th candidate in the zone of

consideration for the year 2008-09 coming from the mouth of the

respondents is highly disturbing, unjust and unfair. Hence, the respondents

should promote the applicant as Chief Accounts Officer if he is included in

the select panel prepared by the DPC held for the year 2008-09 or

subsequently with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and

allowances.7.    The second respondent is directed to ensure that the applicant is

promoted if his name is included in the select list for 2008-09 or

subsequently and appropriate orders in this regard are issued within a period

of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.8.    Original Application is allowed as above. No order as to costs.(K. GEORGE JOSEPH)                                 (JUSTICE P.R. RAMAN)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER                                 JUDICIAL MEMBER



"SA"