http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DR. (SMT.) SUDHA SALHAN

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       07/01/1998

BENCH: S. SAGHIR AHMAD, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                 THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1998 Present:                Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.Saghir Ahmad                Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pattanaik Harish Chandra,  Adv., (C.V.Subba  Rao) Adv.  (NP)  for  the appellants Surya Kant, Adv. for the Respondent                          O R D E R      The following Order of the Court was delivered:      SAGHIR AHMAD.J.      Respondent was  appointed to  the post  of Obstetrician and Gynaecologist  on 30th July, 1979. She was considered by the   Departmental Promotion  Committee for promotion to the post of  Specialist Gr.  II, (Senior  Scale) in non-teaching Specialist  Sub-Cadre   on  8th  of    March  1989,  but  he proceedings of  the Selection  Committee were  placed in the sealed cover.  On 16th  of April 1991, respondent was placed under suspension which was followed by a charge sheet issued to her on 8th of My 1991.      On 18th of April 1991, the respondent filed an Original Application  before  the  Central  Administrative  Tribunal, Principal  Bench,  New  Delhi,  praying  for  the  following reliefs:      "(a)      to direct the respondents      open the sealed cover pertaining to      the promotion  of the  applicant to      Specialist Grade-II  (Senior  scale      officers in non-teaching specialist      sub-cadre  in   pursuance  of   the      recommendations of the Departmental      Promotion Committee  (D.P.C.) which      met on 8.3.1989;      (b)  to direct the respondents that      the    applicant     be    promoted      retrospectively from  the  date  of      her  immediate   junior  has   been      promoted  and  to  pay  arrears  of      salary and  allowances, if  the DPC      had recommended in her favour;      (c)  to direct  the respondents  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    give her all consequential benefits      like  seniority,  fixation  of  pay      etc;      The  Tribunal   by   its   impugned      judgment   allowed   the   Original      Application and directed as under:      "In the result, therefore, we allow      the O.A  and direct the respondents      to open the sealed cover pertaining      to promotion  of the  applicant  to      specialist Grade-II  (Senior  Scale      officers in non-teaching specialist      sub-cadre)  in   pursuance  of  the      recommendations of  the  DPC  which      met on  8.3.1989. Further  in  case      the recommendation of the DPC is in      her   favour,    we   direct,   the      respondents that  the appellant  be      promoted retrospectively  from  the      date of  her immediate  junior  had      been promoted  and pay  the  salary      and allowances  to her.  We further      direct  that  she  is  entitled  to      consequential    benefits,     like      seniority and fixation of pay. This      may be  done within a period of two      months from the dated of receipt of      a copy of this order".      The Union of India is in appeal before us.      The Tribunal has found it as a fact that on the date on which the Departmental Promotion Committee met to assess the case of the petitioner, she was neither under suspension nor was  nay   charge  sheet   issued  to   her.  The  Tribunal, consequently, replying  upon its own Full  Bench decision as also a  decision of  this Court  in New  Ban  of  India  vs. N.P.Seghal &  Anr. (JT. 1991(1) SC 498) allowed the Original Application and issued the direction s noted above.      The question,  however, stands  concluded  by  a  Three Judge decision  of this Court in Union of India and Ors. Vs. K.B.Jankiraman &  Ors. (1991  (4) SCC  109 in which the same view has been taken. We are in respectful agreement with the above decision.  We are  also of  the opinion that if on the date on  which the  name of  a person  is considered  by the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the higher post, such  person is  neither under  suspension nor has any departmental proceedings  been initiated  against  him,  his name, if  he is  found meritorious  and suitable,  has to be brought on  the select list and the "sealed cover" procedure cannot be  adopted. The  recommendation of  the Departmental Promotion Committee  can be  placed in a "sealed cover’ only if on  the date  of consideration of the name for promotion, the departmental  proceedings had  been  initiated  or  were pending or  onm its  conclusion, final  orders had  not been passed by  the appropriate  authority. It is obvious that if the officers, against whom the departmental proceedings were initiated,  is   ultimately  exonerated,  the  sealed  cover containing the  recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee would  b e opened, and the recommendation would be given effect to.      The appeal,  therefore, has  no merits and is dismissed without any order as to costs.