The Chandigarh Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has stayed the proceedings for promotion of sub-inspectors of the UT police.
The direction came on applications of sub-inspectors challenging the seniority list.
Sub-Inspector Satyawan and others had prayed for interim relief in the form of restraining the respondents from proceeding further in pursuance of order dated December 19 this year. They asked the tribunal to stay the execution of the order during the pendency of an original application filed to seek directions to the respondents to finalise the seniority list of sub-inspectors as per circular dated October 28, 2024.
The applicants have prayed that the respondents be directed to not promote their juniors to the rank of inspector in view of the December 19 circular till the fixation of their correct seniority. They contended that the respondents had not finalised the seniority in the rank of SI and their objections had not been considered.
They said a draft seniority list of sub-inspectors was circulated vide order dated October 28, 2024, and objections were sought till November 30, 2024. The applicants submitted their objections. However, the respondents, vide impugned order dated December 19 this year, sought work and conduct report for promotion of sub-inspectors.
Rohit Seth, the counsel for an applicant, asserted that the process for promotions at a time when objections of the applicants had not been duly considered was illegal and arbitrary. The counsel for the respondents argued that the persons whose names were reflected in the impugned list dated December 19 were already promoted to the post of SI in 2019 whereas the applicants were promoted in 2021.
After hearing the arguments, the tribunal stated that the draft seniority list circulated vide order dated October 28, 2024, categorically mentioned that objections could be conveyed by November 30, 2024. Since the applicants had conveyed such objections within the stipulated time, the action of the respondents in proceeding further with promotion of sub-inspectors without considering the objections of the applicants was unwarranted. Further, the respondents had sought legal opinion qua status of the applicants' representations, and the same was pending for action.
The tribunal stated that prima facie case for interim relief was made out in favour of the applicants. Accordingly, the respondents were restrained from proceeding further with the promotion of sub-inspectors in pursuance of order dated December 19 till the next date of hearing, January 19. The respondents might file reply to the original application by then. Modification/continuation of the interim direction shall be considered on the next date of hearing.