Promotion should be effective from the date it is granted and not from the date of vacancy. Retrospective promotion cannot be granted unless specifically provided for in the rules or there is a junior who has been promoted from the date when the retired employee claiming notional promotion was in service.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

1. This common order and judgment would dispose of the aforestated writ petitions filed by Dr. G.S. Tiwari and Mr. J.S. Joshi. The two petitioners impugn the common order dated 3rd July, 2014 passed in OA No. 2820/2012, filed by Dr. G.S. Tiwari and OA No.2822/2012, filed by Mr. J.S. Joshi. The impugned order had also disposed of the OA filed by one Mr. Gautam Ray. However, it appears that Mr. Gautam Ray has not challenged or filed any writ petition before this Court.

2. The petitioners claim and have prayed that they should be granted the grade of Principal Director, as Dr. G.S. Tiwari had become eligible and was due for promotion as Principal Director on 1st September, 2007 as per the 2007-08 select list published on 27th May, 2011. Similarly, Mr. J.S. Joshi had become eligible and due for promotion as the Principal Director on 1st September, 2008 as per the select list for the year 2008-09 published on 27th May, 2011. Dr. G.S. Tiwari and Mr. J.S. Joshi had retired from service on 30th June, 2008 and 30th September, 2008, respectively. The claim of the petitioners is that they are entitled to back wages and re-fixation of pension and the principle of “no work-no pay” should not be applied. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. K.V. Jankiraman and Ors (1991) 4 SCC 109.

3. In order to appreciate the controversy, we would separately notice the factual matrix in the two cases.

G.S. Tiwari

4. Dr. G.S. Tiwari was appointed in the grade of Assistant Civilian Staff Officer, re-designated as Section Officer, in the Armed Forces Headquarters Civil Service on 1st May, 1973. In August, 1977, he was promoted to the post of Civilian Staff Officer, re-designated as Deputy Director. In November, 1982, Dr. G.S.Tiwari was promoted to the post of Senior Civilian Staff Officer, re-designated as Joint Director. In September, 1988, Dr. G.S.Tiwari was promoted to the post of Director.

J.S. Joshi

5. Mr. J.S. Joshi had joined the Armed Forces Headquarters Civil Service in the grade of Assistant Civilian Staff Officer on 1st May, 1974. This post has been re-designated as Section Officer. In September, 1979, he was promoted to the grade of Civilian Staff Officer, re-designated as Deputy Director. In July, 1984, he was promoted to the grade of Senior Civilian Staff Officer, re-designated as Joint Director and in August, 1994, he was promoted to the post of Director.

6. The contention of the petitioners is that there were inter se seniority disputes between the direct appointees and those appointed on promotion to the post of Assistant Civilian Staff Officer. Our attention is drawn to order dated 20th November, 1992 passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi in TA No.356/1985 and the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in the second round of litigation dated 19th February, 2008 reported as AFHQ/ISOs SOs (DP) Association and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2008) 3 SCC 331. The contention is that the inter se seniority disputes had remained pending for more than two decades and as a result, the two petitioners had suffered. They had initially succeeded in the litigation in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal on 20th November, 1992, which was subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court in their decision dated 19th February, 2008. The Supreme Court had directed that the seniority list must be drawn strictly in compliance with and as per the spirit of the judgment of the Tribunal dated 20th November, 1992 and the directions contained in the said decision shall be carried out within three months from 19th February, 2008. The petitioners assert and plead that they would be entitled to the benefit of the said long fought litigation. Specific reliance was placed on paragraph (g) of the order of the Tribunal dated 20th November, 1992, which fo