DR PRADEEP KUMAR TANDON vs SHRI APURVA CHANDRA, SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, NIRMAN BHAWAN, NEW DELHI & ANR

(Open Court)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD .
th
(This the 07 day of October, 2026)

CP No. 10/2024 in O.A. No. 553/2014

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)
Hon’ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative)
Dr. Pradeep Kumar Tandon, aged about 70 years, Son of Sri Gopi
Krishna Tandon, R/o 43/8, Sardar Patel Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad.
…..Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Ashish Srivastava



V E R S U S
1. Shri Apurva Chandra, Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Dr. Ritu Agarwal, Additional Director, Central Government Health
Scheme, Sangam Place, Allahabad.
…..Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Bablu Singh

O R D E R
By: Hon’ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (A)
Heard Shri Ashish Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and

Shri Bablu Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The instant Contempt Petition, under Section 17 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, has been filed for non-compliance
of order dated 11.05.2023 passed by this Tribunal in Original
Application No. 553/2014, whereby the following directions were
issued:
“10. On simple perusal of above order and the case quoted therein it is very
clear that it is identical in facts to the case before us. Hence, we have no doubt
that the applicant has made out a clear case to interfere with the impugned
orders. Accordingly, the OA is allowed and the impugned orders dated
22.10.2010, 06.11.2012, 23.01.2014 and 04.04.2014 are set aside to the extent
they pertain to the applicant. The respondents are directed to have a review
DPC for the applicant to consider his suitability for proforma promotion based
on the ratio of the judgment (Supra) considering his ACR of 2001-02 instead
Page 1 of 5

SAHIL SHARMA

of ACR for the year 2006-07 and if the applicant is found eligible, give him
proforma promotion from the date of his immediate junior getting such
promotion and to fix his pension and other consequential benefits accordingly
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order….”
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order of this
Tribunal has not yet been complied with.
4. From the perusal of the record it reflects that against the
aforesaid order of this Tribunal, Writ-A No. 3755/2024 (Additional
Director Central Government Health Scheme and another vs Dr
Pradeep Kumar Tandon and another) was filed before the Hon’ble
Allahabad High Court, which was dismissed vide order dated.

01.07.2024. The relevant portion of the said order is quoted as under:
“14. A perusal of the above would reveal that the below benchmark ACR was
not communicated in time and the same was communicated after three years,
by then the Reporting/Reviewing Officers had retired and when the
representation was made by the respondent against the below benchmark
entry, the competent authority without seeking the view of
Reporting/Reviewing Officer, apparently, on account of their having retired,
rejected the representation. The Tribunal, in the case of HS Acharya (supra) ,
had directed that in a case where the Reporting and Reviewing Officers, who
had initiated and finalized the report of the officer have retired, the DPC shall
have to consider the report of the employee immediately preceding the first
report which was under consideration, which determination appears to be just

and proper.
15. In the circumstances of the given case, wherein an upgradation is sought
by an officer/employee, unless the comments of the Reporting/Reviewing
Officers are available on the representation, the rejection of the same, based on
the material already available, which the competent authority has no occasion
to deliberate upon for lack of any personal information qua the officer and the
circumstances in which the grading was made and whether on the grounds
indicated by the employee, the same was required to be reviewed/upgraded and
only in a mechanical manner, rejecting the representation, results in the

employee literally being condemned for no fault of his.
16. In view of above discussion, the directions given by the Tribunal do not
call for any interference. There is no substance in the writ petition. The same
is, therefore, dismissed .”
5.
The respondents have filed several compliance affidavits in the
matter. In the last compliance affidavit filed on 13.08.2026, it is stated
that the order of this Tribunal has already been complied with vide
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, New Delhi order dated 16.04.2025
and the applicant has been promoted to the post of Senior
Administrative Grade (SAG) w.e.f. 29.10.2008. For better
Page 2 of 5

SAHIL SHARMA

understanding, the relevant portion of the said order dated 16.04.2025

is quoted as under:
“The President is pleased to promote Dr. Pradeep Kumar Tandon, Chief
Medical Officer (NFSG) (Retd.) (D.O.B. 25.09.1953) from Chief Medical
Officer (NFSG) level of General Duty Medical Officer sub-cadre of the
Central Health Service to the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) under
Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP) Scheme in the pay scale of Rs.
37400-67000/- in the PB-4 with Grade Pay of Rs.10000 (revised-Level 14 of
the Pay Matrix) plus NPA at the prescribed rates, of the same sub-cadre and
services, under the Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP) Scheme,
w.e.f. 29.10.2008.
2. The above promotion is in compliance of Hon'ble CAT, Allahabad Order
dated 11.05.2023 in O.A No. 533 of 2014 (upheld by Hon'ble High Court of

Judicature at Allahabad) vide Order dated 01.07.2024 in W.P. 3755 of 2024.
3. In the event of any officer, who is being promoted to the said post is on leave
of any kind, except study leave/foreign assignment/deputation, etc. on the date
of promotion, this order will take actual effect from the date he/she returns

from such leave and assumes charge of the post.
4. On promotion to the post of Senior Administrative Grade, the pay of the
officer shall be fixed in the pay scale of Rs.37400-67000/- in the PB-4 with
grade pay of Rs. 10000/- (pre-revised) plus NPA at the prescribed rates under

Rule 13 of CCS(RP) Rules, 2008 as amended from time to time.
5 The seniority of the officers will be regulated on the basis of the inter-se
seniority in the grade of Medical Officer of the Central Health Service or as
may be determined by the Government in accordance with the relevant rules.
The promotion to the grade of SAG does not involve change in the present

place of posting.
(Pradeep Kumar)
Under Secretary to the Government of India”
6. Thereafter, the applicant approached the respondents by filing
representation on 26.08.2025 with regard to grant of Higher
Administrative Grade (HAG) to the applicant from the date it falls due.
Subsequently, after considering the representation of the applicant,
letter dated 31.12.2025 was issued. The relevant portion of the
compliance affidavit (i.e. para 5) of the said compliance affidavit is
reproduced as under:
“5. That in reply to the contents of Paragraph No.4 of rejoinder affidavit, it is
submitted that the applicant has made a representation dated 26.08.2025 to
grant promotion to HAG in view of the judgment and Order dated
11.05.2023, which was forwarded to Ministry of Health & FW, New Delhi for
consideration. In response, after careful consideration of the above
representation, the Ministry has issued a letter No.C.17011/01/2024-

CHS.II/8300346 dated 31.12.2025 to the applicant stating therein that
"2. As per DoPT OM dated 24.04.2009 and FAQs (Frequently Asked
Questions) dated 01.08.2012, "All the prescribed eligibility criteria and
promotional norms including 'benchmark' for upgradation to a particular
Page 3 of 5

SAHIL SHARMA

grade pay would have to be met at the time of screening for grant of higher
pay scale under these Orders."
2 (i) Further as per promotional norms for HAG, as prescribed under CGHS
Rules, 1996, "Supertime Grade Officers with three years' regular service in
the grade of Rs.5900-6700, failing which Supertime Grade Officers in the
Scale of Rs.5900-6700 with twelve years' regular service after being
appointed or as the case may be, promoted to the level of Specialist Grade-I,

Professor or Chief Medical Officer (NGSG)" are eligible for HAG promotion.
2 (ii) In terms of DOPT OM dated 18.02.2008, for promotion to the level 14
and above, the DPC has to ensure that prescribed benchmark of "Very Good"
is invariably met in all APARs of five years under consideration.
3. In view of the above instructions of DoPT and CHS Rules, 1996, for grant
of NFU to HAG w.e.f. 02.07.2013 for the panel year 2013-14, "Very Good"
grading in all the reckonable ACRS/APARs for the five years from 2007-08 to
2011-12 is required. Since your ACR for the period 2007-08 is below
benchmark i.e. Good, you do not fulfill the promotional norms for HAG is not

sustainable and does not require consideration.
4. As regards your representation that in spite of the order dated 11.05.2023
of Hon'ble CAT, Allahabad in Ο.Α. No. 553/2014 NFU (HAG) has not been
granted, it is informed that you have neither sought / prayed in Ο.Α.
Νο.553/2014 (filed in CAT, Allahabad Bench) for grant of NFU (HAG) nor
Hon'ble Court has mentioned in its order dated 11.05.2023 for granting NFU
to HAG. In pursuance to Order dated 11.05.2023 of Hon'ble CAT,
Allahabad, you have been granted promotion to SAG w.e.f. 29.10.2008. The
Copy of the applicant's representation dated 26.08.2025 and MOHFW, New
Delhi letter dated 31.12.2025 are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-
1 & 2.”
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant submits that
the order of this Tribunal has not yet been fully complied with as the
respondents were obligated to grant the applicant promotion to SAG
and HAG from the dates these benefits were extended to his juniors by
ignoring the ACRs for the year 2006-07 and 2007-08. Further, the
respondents have also failed to revise the applicant’s pension and other

terminal benefits.
8. However, it is noted from the order of this Tribunal 553/2014
that the respondents were directed to have a review DPC for the
applicant to consider his suitability for proforma promotion
considering his ACR of 2001-02 instead of ACR for the year 2006-07.
There was no direction to ignore the ACR for the year 2007-08. The
letter dated 31.12.2025 of the respondents reflects that ACR of the
applicant for the period 2007-08 is below benchmark i.e. Good and he
does not fulfill the promotional norms for HAG. It is also stated in the
compliance affidavit that all the financial and other pensionary benefits
Page 4 of 5

SAHIL SHARMA

have been paid to the applicant except the difference of arrears of
pension for which request letter dated 22.01.2026 has been sent to the
Central Pay and Accounts Office (CPAO), New Delhi followed by a
reminder dated 01.07.2026. It is mentioned in the letter dated 01.07.2026
that revised Pension Payment Order No. 217211300834 dated 22.01.2026
issued by PAO, LHMC, New Delhi was sent to the CPAO.
9. In view of above, it is apparent that the order of this Tribunal,
which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, has

been complied with.
10. Under these circumstances, the proceedings of the instant
Contempt Petition stand closed and consigned to record. Notices
issued to the respondents are discharged.
11. M.A., if any, stands disposed of, accordingly.

(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member-A Member-J
Sahilsharma/
Page 5 of 5

SAHIL SHARMA