- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the sole respondent.
(2.) The petitioners, Union of India through the Secretary (Water Resources, River Development & Ganga Rejuvenation), have challenged the order dated 22.08.2014, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi, in CCPA/051/00005 of 2014, arising out of OA 211 of 2013(R), whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal has clarified that in the OA No. 160 of 2011(R), the Tribunal's order was to grant the applicants similar benefit as granted to the applicants of different O.As., of similar nature, decided by the other Benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal, and it was further clarified that whatever benefits were allowed to the applicants of those OAs, the applicants in OA 160 of 2011(R) are also to be granted same, and the order was directed to be complied within a further period of six months.
(3.) The facts of this case lie in a short compass. The sole respondent along with another applicant had earlier moved the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 160 of 2011(R), wherein he claimed that he was appointed as Scientists 'B' Junior Hydro Geologist in Central Ground Water Board on 4th July,1997, and in the year 2003 he was eligible to be promoted as Scientists 'C' which was denied to the applicants of OA No. 160 of 2011 (R). The said OA was adjudicated by the Central Administrative Tribunal and it was disposed of in the following terms :- "6. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We find that the main issue involved in this case is whether the applicants, who were promoted to the post of Scientist "C" from the post of Scientist 'B" on 24.7.2009 against the panel for the year 2003, though they were eligible for consideration to be promoted to the post of Scientist "C" from 1.1.2003 can get the benefit of promotion w.e.f. 1.1.2003 or not ? In this regard the applicants have referred various judgments passed by different Benches of this Tribunal wherein it has been directed to consider their cases to give the benefit of promotion from the date they were eligible to be considered and the respondents have also implemented those orders without challenging before the higher forum. In the written statement filed by the respondents they have admitted that though the applicants were eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Scientist "C" from 1.1.2003 but due to the reason that the issue of promotion for the earlier period was kept in sealed cover by the UPSC as per the order of the different Benches of this Tribunal and finally when the Hon'ble Supreme Court had intervened, the UPSC opened the sealed cover in February, 2008 and declared the result of eligible officers of earlier batches and due to the fact that the case of the applicants along with others were not considered by the Board of Assessment. We do not find any force in the submission made by the respondents since there was no stay on the issue of consideration of the promotion of Scientist 'C' or other posts for the candidates of later period. Thus, there was a clear laches on the part of the respondents for which the applicants should not suffer. We also observe that the respondents have already implemented the orders of the various Benches wherein there is a direction for giving promotion from retrospective date. We are satisfied that the issue involved in the instant case is squarely covered by the various judgments given by different Benches of this Tribunal as well as High Court. 7. In view of above, we are of the opinion that the applicants are entitled to get the benefits of the order passed by different Benches of this Tribunal on the same issue and the respondents are directed to consider their case and extend the benefit." .;