Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84193-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6539 of 2025 Petitioner :- Satyadev Singh Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- A.S.G.I.,Harish Chandra Mishra,Raj Kumar Kesari Counsel for Respondent :- Dinesh Varun Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 19.02.2025 in Original Application No. 1338 of 2019 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal , Allahabad Bench, Allahabad by which the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 claiming promotion on the post of Horticulture Work Mistry from 1963 instead of 1964 has been rejected. 2. The facts in brief are that before filing of O.A. No. 1338 of 2019 from which the present proceedings emanate, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 990 of 1995 claiming that one Ram Bodh was recruited as Horticulture Mistry in the year 1963 as direct recruit, whereas the vacancy of Horticulture Mistry should have been filled up first by promotion to the extent of 25% and thereafter only the remaining 75% vacancies could have been filled up by direct recruitment. The petitioner, therefore, prayed that he should be promoted w.e.f. 1963. The respondents contested the claim of the petitioner contending that the petitioner became eligible for promotion in 1964 after completion of five years of regular service on Group 'D' post. He was promoted as Horticulture Mistry w.e.f. 31.10.1964 as per rules. An additional issue regarding grant of promotion described as proforma promotion was also subject matter of consideration. The Tribunal held that proforma promotion is given when an employee is due for promotion but he is working on deputation elsewhere. However, since the petitioner was working regularly with the respondents and therefore, there was no reason to grant proforma promotion. Accordingly, it was clarified that the promotion granted to the applicant on the post of Horticulture Mistry w.e.f. 31.10.1964 shall be deemed to be a promotion on regular basis. The claim of the petitioner for grant of promotion to him from 1963 and not from 1964, however, was not accepted. The relevant part of the findings from the order of Tribunal dated 30.08.1996 are extracted below: "8. ......A foot note, however, indicates that promotion of suitable staff from class-IV to class III category may be made by selection subject to 10% vacancies which would again be subject of overall, 10% class III strength in each category. Another condition for promotion was that the staff in question should have put in service of less than 7 years in class IV and were found entirely suitable for promotion. This condition of 7 years service was subsequently changed to 5 years through Appendix CA-3. There result is that the period of eligibility for promotion to the higher post of the applicant is the same as has been averred by the respondents. It would mean that the applicant who had joined service on 16.07.1959 would be eligible for promotion only in 1965, if period of 5 years is taken into consideration and in 1966, if period of 7 years is calculated. In any case, the promotion of the applicant was not due in the year, 1963 as claimed by him. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the applicant was given promotion w.e.f 31.10.1964. Thus the applicant was not adversely affected. This promotion was given w.e.f. 31.10.1964 because junior to him was promoted on that date.... Xxx XXX XXX 11. ........Keeping in view this fact, we do not find any ground to interfere with the date but we would like to observe that in case this promotion too is described as proforma promotion, it shall stand substituted by regular promotion. 12. Since the regular promotion has been given to the applicant, he shall be entitled for all consequential reliefs meaning thereby arrears of pay." 3. According to the respondents, they fully complied with the order of the Tribunal dated 30.08.1996 and the petitioner was given all benefits, as directed. However, the petitioner again filed representation before respondent no. 1 for being granted promotion from 1963 but it was rejected by respondent no. 1 vide order dated 15.07.2019 and the petitioner was informed that all the benefits, as directed by the Tribunal, have already been given to him. The petitioner once again approached the Tribunal challenging the order dated 15.07.2019. 4. The respondents opposed the claim contending that all the benefits had already been given to the petitioner in terms of order passed by the Tribunal dated 30.08.1996 in O.A. No. 990 of 1995. In the said petition also, the petitioner claimed promotion w.e.f. 1963 but which was not accepted. Therefore, the claim made before the Tribunal by way of fresh petition was barred by principles of res-judicata. It was also contended that the petitioner had retired on 31.05.1996 and the claim for promotion with effect from back date by way of fresh petition was highly belated. 5. The Tribunal duly took into consideration the fact that the petitioner, in the previous claim petition, filed before Tribunal, also claimed promotion with effect from year 1963 but which was not accepted and therefore, held the claim to be barred by res-judicata. It is also held that the claim for retrospective promotion after 23 years of retirement is not liable to be considered. For the said purpose, reliance has been placed on the judgements of the Apex Court in Chennai Metro Politan Water Supply & Swerage Board and others Vs. T.T. Murall Babu reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 and Government of West Bengal & others Vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi and others, 2024 SCC Online SC 3512. 6. It has not been disputed before us that in the previous petition also filed by the petitioner before Tribunal, the petitioner claimed promotion w.e.f. 1963 but which was specifically denied. Therefore, we find no illegality in the view taken by the Tribunal that the said claim was barred by res-judicata. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner has retired long back and we also agree with the view taken by the Tribunal that it would not be proper to re-examine the claim at this distance in time. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the earlier petition was confined to issue of proforma promotion and since his claim for promotion w.e.f. 1963 was rejected by order dated 15.07.2019 and therefore, the Tribunal wrongly held that it was barred by res-judicata or was in any manner belated. However, the submission has no force. The findings of the Tribunal in earlier O.A. No. 990 of 1995, reproduced in foregoing paragraphs, unequivocally show that the Tribunal repelled the claim for promotion from the year 1963. Merely because the petitioner re- agitated the issue, and he was informed by order dated 15.07.2019 that the claim was unsustainable, would not result in removal of the bar of res-judicata or give rise to fresh cause of action. 9. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed. (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 20.5.2025 gp Digitally signed by :- GANESH PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad