2012 (9) TMI 248 - HC - Customs

Entitled for promotion to the post of Senior Hindi Translator with effect from the date of her Junior has been promoted - Held that - As Central Administrative Tribunal had time and again clarified the position that there is no question of any vacancy in a specific region and it has to be based on all India basis concluding to absence of a sanctioned post in the Cochin Customs, i.e., Senior Hindi Translator and as the department was unable to understand the implications and the directions given in the order dated 13.11.2006 and have erroneously adopted a shortcut method to consolidate the seniority list of Junior Hindi Translators of various regions and arranged them in chronological order based on their promotion to the post of Senior Hindi Translator. This was rightly held as a shortcut method adopted by the department without actually implementing the directions issued in the order dated 13.11.200.

Summary

Issues:
1. Declaration of entitlement to promotion and arrears of pay and allowances.
2. Challenge of absence of sanctioned post for promotion.
3. Implementation of Central Administrative Tribunal's order.
4. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal post passing an order.

Analysis:
1. The respondent sought a declaration for promotion to the post of Senior Hindi Translator with notional promotion from the date of her Junior's promotion and actual promotion thereafter, along with arrears of pay. The Tribunal clarified the promotion process to be on an all India basis, not region-specific, and this decision was not challenged by the petitioners. Three Miscellaneous Applications were filed seeking implementation of the Tribunal's order, which the petitioners opposed. The Tribunal found the department's consolidation of the seniority list to be erroneous, affecting the promotion process for various positions.

2. The petitioners contended that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction post passing an order, but the court disagreed, citing the provision for seeking implementation of directions already issued. The court noted the petitioners' failure to implement the Tribunal's order dated 13.11.2006, rendering their challenge baseless. The court dismissed the Original Petition, emphasizing the importance of following and implementing Tribunal orders.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed issues related to promotion entitlement, challenge of sanctioned post absence, and implementation of Tribunal orders. It clarified the jurisdiction of the Tribunal post passing an order and emphasized the importance of complying with and implementing Tribunal directives.