Jammu, Apr 17: The High Court has upheld a Central Administrative Tribunal order granting retrospective appointment, seniority, and old pension benefits to a Junior Engineer who was earlier denied selection despite higher merit.
A division bench comprising Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem dismissed a writ petition filed by the Jammu and Kashmir administration challenging the CAT’s December 27, 2024, order in favour of Raghu Singh.
The dispute arose from the selection process for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical), Grade-II, advertised in 2007 and 2008. Raghu had applied under the Reserved Backward Area category and secured 59.54 points, higher than the last selected candidate in the same category, who had scored 58.34 points. However, he was denied selection on the grounds that his RBA certificate, issued under the 2005 Reservation Rules, had been submitted after the prescribed cut-off date.
The Court noted that Raghu had already submitted an earlier valid certificate under the 1994 rules and later furnished the updated certificate well before completion of the selection process. Following litigation, the High Court in 2014 directed the authorities to include him in the select list, after which he was appointed in July 2014.
Raghu subsequently sought retrospective recognition of his appointment from August 22, 2009, the date when other candidates from the same selection batch were appointed.
The CAT allowed his claim, directing the government to grant notional appointment from 2009, re-fix his seniority based on merit, extend promotional benefits, and apply the Old Pension Scheme, which was in force prior to January 1, 2010. It also ordered refund of pension deductions made under the New Pension Scheme.
But, to cause more delay tactics, challenging this, the government argued before the High Court that seniority cannot be granted for a period during which the employee had not actually worked, and that the respondent had accepted his 2014 appointment without objection. It also contended that pension benefits could not be extended retrospectively.
But, the High Court held that the denial of appointment to the respondent was wrongful and attributable solely to the appointing authority. It ruled that a candidate cannot be penalised for administrative errors and is entitled to notional seniority and consequential benefits in line with his original merit position.
The bench further held that once notional appointment from 2009 is granted, the respondent would also be entitled to coverage under the Old Pension Scheme, as it was applicable at the time of original appointments.
Dismissing the Govt's petition, the Court found no legal or factual error in the Tribunal’s order and affirmed that denying such benefits would violate the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. The judgment reinforces the principle that administrative lapses cannot deprive a candidate of rightful service benefits arising from a common selection process.
|