Illegal Promotion Does Not Create Right to Parity; Laches Vitiates Claim.

The applicant, K. Nandakumar, was initially appointed as a Clerk in 1983 and later became a Data Entry Operator on 08.07.1987.

He was subsequently promoted to Senior Data Entry Operator in 1996.

After cadre reorganization in 2004, the Data Processing Centre became the Information Technology Centre and the applicant continued as a Junior Engineer (Information Technology) in the entry grade.

The 5th respondent, Mr. Janardhanam, was initially appointed as a Typist on 27.02.1982 and promoted to Head Typist on 21.07.1997.

He was posted in the Computer Centre on an ex-cadre basis in 1993 and subsequently absorbed as Senior Engineer-II and further promoted to AEDPM.

The applicant alleges that the 5th respondent received irregular promotions to ex-cadre posts, violating promotion norms, and was absorbed at a higher level than him, despite the applicant being senior in the cadre-based posts.

The applicant sought to be absorbed in the post of Senior Engineer Grade-II on par with the 5th respondent from the date of reorganization.

The respondents argued that the 5th respondent's absorption was in accordance with Railway Board's order dated 17.11.2004, based on his ex-cadre position and service in a distinct seniority unit.

Whether the applicant is entitled to be absorbed in the post of Senior Engineer Grade-II on par with the 5th respondent with effect from the date of reorganization and granted all attendant benefits.

Whether the promotions accorded to the 5th respondent were in contravention of established rules and norms of the Railway Board.

Whether the applicant's claim for parity with the 5th respondent, made in 2016 concerning an event in 2005, is barred by laches.

The Tribunal primarily considered the Railway Board's order dated 17.11.2004 regarding the absorption and deployment of staff in the newly formed IT cadre.

Para 7(i) of the order stated that existing encadred staff would be absorbed in the corresponding/equivalent grade in the new IT cadre based on the grade they were working in.

Para 7(ii) addressed staff working on an ex-cadre basis, requiring them to be holding the grade on a regular basis after due selection and working for at least 10 years in the Computer Centre for absorption.

The Tribunal also referenced the principle established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghulam Rasool Lone Vs. State of J & K & Ors 2009 (15) SCC 321, which held that relief for illegal promotions cannot be granted if there is significant delay (laches) and if the promotion was based on an illegal relaxation of rules, even if another employee previously benefited.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant was absorbed as Junior Engineer-IT (JE-IT) on cadre reorganization on 01.04.2005, in the scale of Rs.5000-8000, and had been functioning in that post since.

The 5th respondent had attained three promotions since the 2005 reorganization, yet the applicant only raised objections in 2016.

The Tribunal acknowledged the applicant's contention that the 5th respondent's promotions were in contravention of established rules, specifically the 5-year experience norm in the lower scale.

However, the Tribunal explicitly stated that the issue in the present OA was not to delve into the legality of the 5th respondent's promotions.

Even if the 5th respondent's promotions were irregular, the applicant could not claim parity, as held by the Supreme Court in Ghulam Rasool Lone (supra).

Furthermore, the significant delay by the applicant in challenging the promotions of the 5th respondent (from 2005 to 2016) rendered his claim susceptible to the doctrine of laches.

The Tribunal held that the applicant could not claim parity with the 5th respondent even if the latter's promotions were illegal, and the significant delay in raising the objections amounted to laches.

No specific orders or directions were granted beyond the dismissal of the application.