The Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy, Bombay & Anr. Vs. C. Bhaskara Sarma and Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No.808 of 1988.
Petitioner: The Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy, Bombay & Anr.
Respondent: C. Bhaskara Sarma and Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No.808 of 1988.
Judges: E.S.VENKATARAMIAH & N.D.OJHA,JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 26, 1988
Head Note:
SERVICE
Promotion – Officers in SA(D), SA(E) and SA(F) to be considered for promotion – The Government to consider the question of including these officers amongst the gazetted posts.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. After these cases were heard for some time, Shri Kuldip Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General stated that:
(i) all persons who are promoted to SA(D) post shall be considered concurrently considered for SO(SC) post when their chance for promotion to SA(E) post comes and if they are found fit, they will be promoted to SO (SC) Grade;
(ii) similarly, all persons holding posts of SA(E) will be considered concurrently for promotion to SO(SD) post when their chance for promotion to SA(F) comes; and
(iii) in exceptional cases, all those persons holding posts of SA(F), whose merit consideration as professionals because of outstanding abilities in the theoritical fields, shall be considered for the post of SO(SD) and if they are transferred to the SO(SD) posts thereafter they would be having all the promotional facilities available to SO(SD) officers.
2. The learned Additional Solicitor General further stated that the Government will consider the question of including officers in SA(D), SA(E) and SA(F) Grades amongst the gazetted posts.
3. We record the above statement.
4. We have carefully gone through the judgments of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in Transfer Application No. 620/86 (W.P.No. 9431/83) out of which Civil Appeal No. 808 of 1988 arises, as also the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in Transfer Application No. 788/86 (W.P.No. 9599/83) out of which Civil Appeal No. 809 of 1988 arises. We are of the view that the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench out of which Civil Apeal No. 809 of 1988 arises should be affirmed. We, therefore, dismiss Civil Appeal No. 809 of 1988. As consequence of our above decision Civil Appeal No. 808 of 1988 filed against the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench should be allowed. We accordingly allow Civil Appeal No. 809 of 1988 and set aside the judgment against which the said appeal has been filed. There will be no order as to costs.
1. After these cases were heard for some time, Shri Kuldip Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General stated that:
(i) all persons who are promoted to SA(D) post shall be considered concurrently considered for SO(SC) post when their chance for promotion to SA(E) post comes and if they are found fit, they will be promoted to SO (SC) Grade;
(ii) similarly, all persons holding posts of SA(E) will be considered concurrently for promotion to SO(SD) post when their chance for promotion to SA(F) comes; and
(iii) in exceptional cases, all those persons holding posts of SA(F), whose merit consideration as professionals because of outstanding abilities in the theoritical fields, shall be considered for the post of SO(SD) and if they are transferred to the SO(SD) posts thereafter they would be having all the promotional facilities available to SO(SD) officers.
2. The learned Additional Solicitor General further stated that the Government will consider the question of including officers in SA(D), SA(E) and SA(F) Grades amongst the gazetted posts.
3. We record the above statement.
4. We have carefully gone through the judgments of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in Transfer Application No. 620/86 (W.P.No. 9431/83) out of which Civil Appeal No. 808 of 1988 arises, as also the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in Transfer Application No. 788/86 (W.P.No. 9599/83) out of which Civil Appeal No. 809 of 1988 arises. We are of the view that the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench out of which Civil Apeal No. 809 of 1988 arises should be affirmed. We, therefore, dismiss Civil Appeal No. 809 of 1988. As consequence of our above decision Civil Appeal No. 808 of 1988 filed against the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench should be allowed. We accordingly allow Civil Appeal No. 809 of 1988 and set aside the judgment against which the said appeal has been filed. There will be no order as to costs.
