AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 1403
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned order dated 29.8.06 and 7.11.06 in O.A. No. 2531/05 & R.A. No. 168/06 respectively passed by Hon'ble CAT. vi) To quash and set-aside the DPC minutes proceedings held on 04.3.2005. vii) Direct the respondents to grant promotion to the petitioner to the post of vice-principal from the date of promotion of his immediate junior with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay with 24% interest; viii) Pass such other or further orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. The facts as noted from the record are that, the petitioner joined Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan ('KVS', for short) as TGT (Science) on August 26, 1972. Later he was appointed as PGT (Chemistry) via direct selection on August 02, 1976. He was terminated from service under Article 81 (b) of Education Code, on February 11, 1988. He challenged the said order of termination. This Court had set aside the termination order and directed the respondent to reinstate the services of the petitioner with all consequential benefits. The petitioner on October 3, 2000, was reinstated in service. He was posted / transferred to K....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sioner, KVS passed a fresh order dated January 24, 2006, terminating the services of the petitioner with immediate effect under Article 81(b) of the KVS Education Code. Thereafter, the petitioner filed various litigations like Original Application, Writ Petition and Appeals before the Tribunal, this Court and the Supreme Court against his termination. He did not succeed and his termination attained finality, till the Supreme Court. 8. At the outset, we may state here that the challenge in this writ petition is to the dismissal of O.A 2531/2005 and R.A 168/2006. 9. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was of promotion. It was his case that his, immediate junior, Mrs. Swaran Bakshi, was promoted to the post of Vice Principal in 1996 and as such the petitioner is also entitled to be considered for promotion as Vice Principal from the same date. A review DPC was constituted for considering the petitioner's case on March 04, 2005, which did not find him "fit" for promotion on the ground that he did not meet the required benchmark "Good". Aggrieved by his non-promotion, he filed the O.A. 2531/2005. 10. It was his case that, the ACRs and service record, on the basis of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on Grade. The Tribunal allowed the OA and directed the respondent to consider his claim for grant of Senior Scale and if found fit, to grant all consequential benefits. The respondent considered the claim of the petitioner for Senior Scale and found him fit but promotion to the post of Vice Principal was denied to him. 15. According to him, when the petitioner was found fit for grant of Senior Scale particularly when the benchmark and the records being same, the respondent could not have denied him the promotion to the post of Vice Principal. He also stated that, he was selected twice for foreign assignments to Bhutan and Tanzania through Ministry of Home Affairs, which is only possible when the ACRs and the service records of the petitioner are commendable. 16. He by placing reliance on the order of this Court, dated August 6, 2014, had observed that the petitioner's ACR for the years 1987 and 1988 were not communicated to him. The relevant paragraph of the said order is reproduced as under: "5. This Court has carefully considered the submission and the records. The basic grievance of the petitioner was that in 1996 a teacher junior to him in the cadre of PGT was pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er and such an adverse remark cannot be taken into consideration for promotion. He also stated, this Court vide order dated July 31, 2015, has stated that according to the existing instructions, the petitioner's grading for the year 1987-1988 would have to be read as "very good", in view of the fact that the ACR of the previous year, i.e., 1985-1986 was "very good". The relevant paragraph of the order dated July 31, 2015 in this writ petition is reproduced as under: "It is quite evident that the petitioner was never communicated. with the "average" grading ACRs at any relevant point of time either contemporaneously in 1987-88 nor even after judgment of the Court. This position emerged when the learned counsel for the KVS, with reluctance, agreed that the adverse ACRs were never communicated and also based on the record, i.e. the Memorandum of 21.11.2014 he said that the records were not available. In these circumstances, the direction of this Court in the final judgment dated 06.08.2014 has clearly not been worked-out. The writ petitioner has produced an annexure P-7 - the grading given to the petitioner by the employer/ borrowing department when he was out on deputation; ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e order dated July 23, 2012, had dismissed the case of the petitioner for considering the petitioner's entitlement to the Selection Grade. The petitioner had also preferred an appeal against the order of this Court which was also dismissed by the Supreme Court in SLP No.26399-26400/2013, wherein the Supreme Court stated that the claim of the petitioner was considered by the DPC, and it did not find the petitioner's service satisfactory, hence, denied the same. 22. He submitted that the grant of Selection Grade to the employees of the respondents is governed by Accounts Code of KVS which provides that the Senior Scale and the Selection Grade will be granted when the DPC is satisfied with the performance of the individual. He also stated that, every Teacher would be required to participate in an in-service training program of three weeks duration, and this aspect was considered by this Court. He also stated that this Court in W.P.(C) 3488/2017, has noted the fact that the petitioner has been granted the promotion to the post of Vice Principal w.e.f. May 16, 1996, by a way of memorandum dated July 16, 2006 with the approval of the Competent Authority. Therefore, the grant of Select....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he "next below rule" between 16.05.1996 and 24.01.2006 as Principal should, in the opinion of the Court, again be considered, as in accordance with the state of affairs, existing during that period. A decision in the above light shall be taken by the KVS and an appropriate affidavit filed within three weeks in this regard. List on 09.03.2018." "ORDER % 13.07.2018 The order of 08.12.2017 had directed the respondent Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) to consider the petitioner's claim for notional promotion as Principal on application for of the "next below rule" period between the period 16.05.1996 and 24.01.2006. Mr. Rajappa, learned counsel for KVS has produced the original record which discloses that the KVS appears to have completely ignored the relevant facts. It has in fact cited two reasons for not granting the request: (1) that the ACRs for 1987-88 were missing and that in its absence, he could not be promoted as Principal on the application of the "next below rule". In this Court's opinion, the view expressed on the file is facially contumacious besides being contrary to the record. Concededly, the petitioner was p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., had held that the PGT Selection Grade would have been entitled to the petitioner though he was promoted notionally as a Vice Principal w.e.f., 1996. He also stated that, by the order of this Court the respondents were required to grant Selection Grade to the petitioner w.e.f., July 02, 2000, with all consequential benefits but the respondents have defied this Court's order and not a single penny with respect to the selection grade has been paid to the petitioner. 27. The case of the petitioner in the CONT.CAS(C) 996/2022, is that this Court vide order dated July 13, 2018, had directed the respondents to release pension, gratuity, etc. of the petitioner with immediate effect. Whereas, the respondent has not released any amount towards pension and gratuity to the petitioner. The petitioner had approached the office of the respondent and requested for the release of the same. He also stated that, despite a direction being issued by this Court, the respondent has not implemented the same against which the petitioner filed this contempt case. 28. The case of the petitioner in the CONT.CAS(C) 998/2022, is that this Court vide order dated October 16, 2019, had directed the respond....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsequential benefits immediately, but till date not a single penny has been paid to the petitioner. We may state that, no such direction was given by the Court; rather the direction was for filing of an appropriate affidavit by the respondent. 35. Be that as it may, the issue of grant of Selection Grade was raised by the petitioner in O.A. 2536/2005 and the same was dismissed by the Tribunal on August 29, 2006. Even the writ petition being W.P.(C) 7869/2007 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on July 23, 2013 and the Special Leave to Appeal no. 26399- 26400/2013 was also dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated November 25, 2014. Therefore, the claim of Selection Grade does not arise from the impugned orders dated August 29, 2006 and November 7, 2006 in OA No. 2531/2005 and in R.A 168/2006, respectively. Even otherwise, the issue having attained finality till the Supreme Court, the petitioner cannot claim by way of an application / contempt petition the Selection Grade. Hence, this Contempt Petition is closed. 36. Similarly, in so far as the CONT.CAS(C) 996/2022, which has been filed alleging violation of order dated July 13, 2018 in CM. No. 15855/2017....