B. VENKATESHAN vs M/o Home Affairs
- Court
- Central Administrative Tribunal
1
Item 30(C-V)
OA No.3091/2010
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
MA No.2876/2014
in
O.A. No.3091/2010
Order reserved on : 20.05.2026
Order pronounced on: 31.08.2026
Hon’ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Hon’ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)
1. Sh. B.Venkatesan
Data Processing Assistant Grade 'B' Post (Ad-hoc)
National Crime Records Bureau
East Block-7, R.K.Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
2. Shri S.V.Navani
Data Processing Assistant Grade 'B' Post (Ad-hoc)
National Crime Records Bureau
East Block-7, R.K.Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
3. Shri A.K. Srivastava
Data Processing Assistant Grade 'B' Post (Ad-hoc)
National Crime Records Bureau
East Block-7, R.K.Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
4. Shri K.K.Bhardwaj
Data Processing Assistant Grade 'B' Post (Ad-hoc)
National Crime Records Bureau
East Block-7, R. K. Puram, New Delhi-110066.
...Applicants
(By Advocate : Shri Barnali Paul)
Versus
1. Union of India ,Through Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India,
North Block, New Delhi.
Digitally signed by
RACHNA KAPOOR
RACHNA KAPOOR
2. National Crime Records Bureau,
Through the Director,
East Block-VII, R.K.Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
...Respondents
(By Advocate : Shri Gyanendra Singh)
2
Item 30(C-V)
OA No.3091/2010
O R D E R
By Hon’ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J) :-
The captioned OA was filed by the applicants
before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the
following relief(s) :-
“(i) Direct the respondents to promote and
regularize the services of incumbents from the
date (i.e. w.e.f. 14/03/95 for K.K. Bhardwaj,
01/07/95 for S.V. Nawani, 30/12/95 for
A.K.Shrivastav and 21/07/97 for B.
Venkatesan) they became eligible as the
vacancies were available
(ii) Classify the post of DPA-B strictly
according to the provision of model RRs i.e.
GCS Group B Gazetted.
(iii) Pass any other or further orders which
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.”
2. After hearing both sides, this Tribunal vide its
order dated 23.02.2012 disposed of the OA with the
Digitally signed by
RACHNA KAPOOR
RACHNA KAPOOR
following directions :-
“13. Considering the totality of facts and
circumstances of the case, we are of the
considered opinion that there are enough
justification in support of the applicants' two
main claims as discussed above. In the result,
the OA having merits is allowed in terms of our
orders and directions within, leaving the
respective parties to meet their own costs.”
3
Item 30(C-V)
OA No.3091/2010
3. The aforesaid order passed by the Tribunal was
challenged by the respondents before the Hon‟ble High
Court of Delhi in WP(C) No.2871/2015. The said Writ
Petition was disposed of vide order dated 02.02.2024
with the following directions :-
“1. The present writ petition under Articles 226
& 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to
assail the order dated 23.02.2012 passed by
the learned Central Administrative Tribunal
(hereinafter referred to as „the Tribunal‟) in
O.A. No.3091/2010. Vide the impugned order,
the learned Tribunal has allowed the Original
Application preferred by the respondents by
directing the petitioner to examine the case of
each of the respondents, along with other
eligible officers of DPA Grade A, for promotion
to the post of DPA Grade-B against each
vacancy year w.e.f. 1995. The Tribunal has
further directed that in case any of them are
found eligible for promotion against a vacancy
for any year prior to 2005, they be granted
promotion on notional basis, with those
already working on the promotional post on ad
hoc be also granted consequential benefits.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the learned Tribunal has erred in passing
the impugned directions to consider the
respondents for promotion to the post of DPA
Grade-B against vacancies from year 1995. He
submits that the Tribunal has failed to
appreciate that in fact there was no vacancy in
this post for the years prior to 2005.
Furthermore, the Recruitment Rules for the
said post were notified only in 2010 and
therefore no promotions could be made prior
thereto. He, therefore, prays that the impugned
order be set aside.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent supports the impugned order and
submits that the learned Tribunal has found
Digitally signed by
RACHNA KAPOOR
RACHNA KAPOOR
4
Item 30(C-V)
OA No.3091/2010
that not only were the Model Recruitment Rule
available with the petitioners but there were a
number of vacancies available since 1998. He
further submits that the Tribunal has neither
granted promotion to any of the respondents
from any particular year nor directed the
petitioners to consider them for any particular
year, but has merely directed the petitioner to
consider the respondents along with other
eligible officers of DPA Grade A for promotion
to the post of DPA Grade B against vacancies
from 1995, as may be available on year to year
basis. He, therefore, prays that the writ
petition be dismissed.
4. Having considered the submissions of the
learned counsel for the parties, we would begin
by noting the relevant extracts of the impugned
order as under:
nd
“11. Pursuant to the above, the 2
respondent undertook further processing
and pending notification of RR convened
the DPC on 10.06.2005 and granted
regular promotion to the applicants in
the DPA Grade B with effect from
13.06.2005. Our careful scrutiny of the
pleadings manifest that the respondents
are responsible for not granting regular
promotion. Non-availability of vacancy
was problem initially but once some
posts were revived and Model RR of 1998
was available with the respondents, even
if the DPC met in the year 2005 and RR
was notified in the year 2010, the
respondents were duty bound to draw up
annual promotion panel for regular
promotion to the post of DPA Grade-B.
However, the applicants may have
fulfilled 4 years of regular service on the
dates from which they are claiming
regular promotion to DPA Grade B, but
there are many other factors which are
to be examined by the respondents even
to consider their claim. Those factors are
vacancy position year wise, seniority list
of DPA Grade-A officers and eligibility of
Digitally signed by
RACHNA KAPOOR
RACHNA KAPOOR
5
Item 30(C-V)
OA No.3091/2010
the applicants in all aspects including
educational qualification. It is trite law
that the DPC must meet for every
vacancy year to prepare a Panel for
promotion. In the present case, the
above position would be fully applicable.
nd
For the above reasons, we direct the 2
respondent to examine the case of the
applicants along with other eligible
officers of DPA Grade-A for each vacancy
year for the post of DPA Grade-B w.e.f.
1995 and if the applicants are found fit
for any earlier year prior to 2005 (the
year of their regular promotion), they
shall be granted promotion to DPA
Grade-B on notional- basis. As three of
the applicants have been promoted on ad
hoc basis on 6.03.2000, and 19.06.1998
they shall be granted actual pay benefits
from their respective date of ad hoc
promotion.”
5. From a perusal of the aforesaid extract of
the impugned order, we find that, as urged by
the respondent, the Tribunal has only directed
the petitioners to consider the case of the
respondents for promotion from vacancy year
1995 and has not directed grant of promotion
from any particular year. This direction, as is
evident, has not only been made subject to
availability of vacancies but also subject to all
other relevant factors including their eligibility.
We are, therefore, unable to appreciate the plea
of the petitioner that promotions have been
directed to be given to the respondents despite
there being no vacancy.
6. We also do not find any infirmity with the
Tribunal‟s conclusion that once Model
Recruitment Rules were already available with
the petitioner since 1998, the consideration for
promotion against the available vacancies for
DPA Grade-B could be carried out on the basis
of these Recruitment Rules itself.
7. In the light of the aforesaid, once the
impugned order only directs the petitioner to
Digitally signed by
RACHNA KAPOOR
RACHNA KAPOOR
6
Item 30(C-V)
OA No.3091/2010
consider the cases of the respondents for
promotion against available vacancies and that
too by taking into all relevant factors, we find
no reason to interfere with the same.
8. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
The petitioners are, as prayed for, granted six
weeks time to comply with the impugned
order.”
4. In pursuance to the directions given by this
Tribunal read with the observations of the Hon‟ble High
Court of Delhi made in the aforesaid Writ Petition, the
respondent authorities have passed a detailed order
dated 21.05.2024, which reads as under :-
“ ORDER
WHEREAS the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
dismissed WP(C) 2781/2015 filed by the
National Crime Records Bureau (hereinafter
referred to as 'Bureau') vide order dated
02.02.2024. The operative portion of the order
reads as under:-
"......the Tribunal has only directed the
petitioners to consider the case of the
respondents for promotion from vacancy year
1995 and has not directed grant of promotion
from any particular year. This direction, as is
evident, has not only been made subject to
availability of vacancies but also subject to all
other relevant factors including their eligibility.
We are, therefore, unable to appreciate the plea
of the petitioner that promotions have been
directed to be given to the respondents despite
there being no vacancy.
We also do not find any infirmity with the
Tribunal's conclusion that once Model
Recruitment Rules were already available with
the petitioner since 1998, the consideration for
Digitally signed by
RACHNA KAPOOR
RACHNA KAPOOR
7
Item 30(C-V)
OA No.3091/2010
promotion against the available vacancies for
DPA Grade-B could be carried out on these
Recruitment Rules itself.
In the light of the aforesaid, once the impugned
order only directs the petitioner to consider the
cases of the respondents for promotion against
available vacancies and that too by taking into
all relevant factors, we find no reason to
interfere with the same."
AND WHEREAS earlier Shri B Venkatesan,
Data Processing Assistant Grade B (now retd.)
and three others (namely Shri K. K. Bhardwaj,
Shri A K Shrivastav and late Shri S V Nawani)
(referred to as 'Respondents/Applicants') had
filed OA No.3091/2010 in the Hon'ble CAT,
Principal Bench, New Delhi seeking the
following reliefs inter alia:-
1) To promote and regularize their services
from the date they became eligible, as
vacancies were available in the grade of DPA-B
at that time; and
2) To classify the post of DPA-B in the rank of
Gazetted as provided for in the model RRs.
AND WHEREAS Hon'ble CAT, PB, New Delhi in
its above referred order dated 23.02.2012,
while allowing the prayer directed as under:-
"However, the applicants may have fulfilled 4
years of regular service on the dates from which
they are claiming regular promotion to DPA
Grade B, but there are many other factors
which are to be examined by the respondents
even to consider their claim. Those factors are
vacancy position year wise, seniority list of DPA
Grade-A officers and eligibility of applicants in
all aspects including educational qualification. It
is trite law that DPC must meet for every
vacancy year to prepare a panel for promotion
In the present case, the above position would be
fully applicable. For the above reasons, we
nd
direct the 2 respondent to examine the case of
applicants along with other eligible officers of
Digitally signed by
RACHNA KAPOOR
RACHNA KAPOOR
8
Item 30(C-V)
OA No.3091/2010
DPA Grade-A for the post of DPA Grade-B w.e.f
1995 and if the applicants are found fit for any
earlier year prior to 2005 (the year of their
regular promotion), they shall be granted
promotion to DPA Grade-B on notional basis. As
three of applicants have been promoted on ad
hoc basis on 6.03.2000, and 19.06.1998 they
shall be granted actual pay benefits from their
respective date of ad hoc promotion.
Why the respondents in case of the applicants
in DPA-B should be discriminated and classified
as "Non-Gazetted’. Such classification which
grants status to the applicants as "Non-
Gazetted" compared to their counter parts in
other Ministries as "gazette", in our considered
view, amounts to invidious discrimination. Thus
we direct the respondents considering to carry
out appropriate amendments to the RR dated
15.01.2010 to classify the DPA Grade B as
'Gazetted’."
AND WHEREAS while considering their second
prayer, the post of DPA-B (re-designated as
Data Processing Assistant and later as
Technical Officer) was classified as „Gazetted'
with the approval of DoPT, in the year 2015.
AND WHEREAS with regard to grant of
promotion to the post of DPA-B retrospectively,
a WP(C) 2781/2015 was filed in 2015 by this
Bureau before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
AND WHEREAS in compliance with the orders
of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated
02.02.2024 to consider the cases of the
respondents for promotion against available
vacancies by taking into account all relevant
factors, as referred above, the Bureau
examined the case of applicants along with
other eligible officers of DPA Grade-A for the
post of DPA Grade-B w.e.f 1995.
AND WHEREAS when NCRB was formed by
merging of four different wings/ offices of Govt.
Of India viz. Directorate of Coordination Police
Computers, Central Finger Print Bureau of
Digitally signed by
RACHNA KAPOOR
RACHNA KAPOOR
9
Item 30(C-V)
OA No.3091/2010
CBI, Data Section of Coordination Division of
CBI and Statistical section of BPR&D, the
nomenclature of the posts under examination
were Sub-Inspector and Inspector in the
Computer and Systems Division of this
Bureau. Later, these posts were re-designated
as Data Processing Assistant-Grade A (DPA-A)
and Data Processing Assistant Grade - B (DPA-
B) respectively. The Bureau had notified
Recruitment Rules for the post of Inspector on
16.12.1988. As per this Recruitment Rules, the
method of recruitment was 331/3% on
promotion failing which by transfer on
deputation (including short-term contract) and
662/3% by transfer on deputation (including
short-term contract)/ transfer failing which by
Direct Recruitment. However, when the Bureau
could not amend the RRs till the year 1995, as
the Model RRs for posts were being finalised by
DoPT, the Bureau obtained approval from the
UPSC, conveyed vide their letter dated
24.03.1995, to the following method of
recruitment, eligibility criteria and field for
filling up the post of Data Processing Assistant
Group „B‟ in the NCRB pending finalisation of
Recruitment Rules:-
(i) 15% by promotion failing which by
transfer on deputation
(ii) 85% by transfer on deputation (including
STC/Transfer.
Promotion: DPA Gr.A with 4 years regular
service in the grade as such
AND WHEREAS the Dept. of Expenditure's OM
dated 03.05.1993 regarding filling up of
vacancies, reads as under:
"If a post is held in abeyance or remains unfilled
for a period of one year or more, it would be
deemed to be abolished
If the post is required subsequently, the
prescribed procedure for creation of new posts
will have to be followed".
Digitally signed by
RACHNA KAPOOR
RACHNA KAPOOR
10
Item 30(C-V)
OA No.3091/2010
AND WHEREAS as per the available live
vacancies from the year 1995 to 2003, there
was only one vacancy available for promotion
in accordance with the method of recruitment
as approved by UPSC. Shri Sridhar Prakash
was the senior-most among all the DPAs-A and
hence promotion given to him in the year 1996
retrospectively in compliance with the court
orders was adjusted against this single
vacancy. 10 posts of DPA-B were revived in the
year 2004. Subsequently, a proposal sent to
MHA for filling up the posts through promotion
as one time method. The following method of
recruitment was obtained from Ministry of
Home Affairs as One time method:-
(i) Promotion as Method of Recruitment
(ii) Eligibility service - DPA-A with 3 years'
regular service
(iii) Age and EQ prescribed for DR will not
apply for promotion.
AND WHEREAS, a DPC was held in the year
2005 to consider promotion to 13 vacancies (10
revived and 3 vacancies occurred due to
promotion of the incumbents to JSOs) on the
basis of one-time method received from MHA.
However, as the seniority list could not be
finalized due to some disputes, the promotions
were conferred on adhoc basis
AND WHEREAS in the year 2009, after
finalization of seniority in the grade of DPA-A,
the Bureau took swift action by giving regular
promotion to all the eligible incumbents w.e.f.
13.06.2005, including the
Respondents/Applicants.
AND WHEREAS it is also important to consider
that the Respondents/ Applicants to the
instant Writ Petition had earlier filed an OA
1675/2006, seeking promotion on the basis of
Model Recruitment Rules, and when the same
was not acceded to by Hon'ble CAT, PB, New
Delhi they filed a WP (C) 7576/2009 in the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in which the
Digitally signed by
RACHNA KAPOOR
RACHNA KAPOOR
11
Item 30(C-V)
OA No.3091/2010
Hon'ble High Court vide their order dated
18.03.2009 inter-alia stated as under:-
"The Tribunal has rightly held in view of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Union of India through Govt. of Pondicherry and
Anr. Vs. V. Ramakrishnan and Ors., JT 2005 (9)
SC 422, that directions cannot be given to the
respondents to consider the cause of the
petitioners for promotion to the post of DPA
Grade-B on regular basis applying the Model
Recruitment Rules"
AND WHEREAS the model Recruitment Rules
has neither been notified nor it included the
provisions regarding Method of Recruitment.
Hence, the method as approved by UPSC vide
their letter dated 24.03.1995 was applicable till
the notification of Recruitment Rules.
AND WHEREAS, in compliance with the
Hon'ble High Court's directions dated
02.02.2024 in WP(C) 2781/2015, and in view
of the aforesaid factual and legal position, the
eligibility of the Respondents/Applicants along
with others for promotion to DPA Grade B was
thoroughly examined and considered since
1995, against available vacancies and by
taking into account all relevant factors.
AND WHEREAS, from the year 1995 to 2003,
there was only one vacancy available for
promotion in accordance with the method of
recruitment as approved by UPSC. Shri
Sridhar Prakash, the senior-most among all
the DPAs-A given promotion in the year 1996
retrospectively in compliance with the court
orders and was adjusted against this single
vacancy.
THEREFORE, in view of above, as there were
no more live vacancies available for promotion
at various point of time, Respondents/
Applicants cannot be promoted prior to 2005.
Digitally signed by
RACHNA KAPOOR
RACHNA KAPOOR
12
Item 30(C-V)
OA No.3091/2010
The aforesaid is in compliance with the order
dated 02.02.2024 of Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi in WP (C) 2781/2015.
This issues with the approval of the Competent
Authority.”
5. It is relevant to mention that the applicants had
moved an MA No.983/2013 for execution of the order
dated 23.02.2012, subsequent to which, the
respondents filed an MA No.2876/2014 seeking
extension of time to comply with the said order of the
Tribunal. However, MA No.2876/2014 is being shown
in order sheets as MA for execution in place of MA
No.983/2013, which was originally filed for execution
of order and the same is reflected as disposed of.
6. In view of the position explained above, both the
MAs i.e. MA No.983/2013 (Execution Application),
which is shown to be disposed of inadvertently is now
formally disposed of and MA No.2876/2014 filed
seeking extension of time to comply with the order
dated 23.02.2012 of the Tribunal passed in the OA, is
Digitally signed by
RACHNA KAPOOR
RACHNA KAPOOR
also disposed of as having become infructuous.
7. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Rajveer Singh Verma) (Dr.Chhabilendra Roul)
Member (J) Member (A)
„rk‟