IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is that superannuated employees are entitled to consideration for promotion on a notional basis with all consequential benefits, as directed by the OM dated 12.10.1998.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 18855/2024 -Ex.

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 4605/2024, CM APPL. 18854/2024 -Stay & CM APPL. 18856/2024 -Addl. doc.

3. The present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to assail the order dated 22.12.2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) in O.A. No. 2161/2017.

4. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has allowed the original application filed by the respondents by directing the petitioners to consider the respondents for grant of Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) in DANIPS, w.e.f. the date they became eligible for consideration of the said scale. The learned Tribunal has, however, made it clear that if found eligible, the respondents will be granted SAG only on notional basis with all consequential benefits.

5. In support of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is wholly perverse as the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that even though as per OM dated 12.10.1998, cases of persons who already stand superannuated on the date of consideration for grant of SAG can be considered by the employer, the same does not entitle any employee to claim such consideration as a matter of right. He submits that the respondents having not assailed the aforesaid OM dated 12.10.1998, the learned Tribunal erred in issuing directions to the petitioners to consider the respondents for grant of SAG against the vacancies of 2013. He further submits that in the present case, the respondents had already superannuated on 29.02.2016, i.e, before the convening of the DPC on 31.08.2016, and therefore, once it was found that they were not available for actual physical service, their names were rightly not considered by the DPC, which aspect the learned tribunal has failed to appreciate.

6. In support of his plea that as per the OM dated 12.10.1998, the respondents did not have any vested right to claim consideration of their cases for grant of SAG, the learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to the relevant extracts of the said OM as reproduced in the counter affidavit filed by them before the learned Tribunal. He, therefore, prays that the impugned order be set aside.

7. Having perused the impugned order and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, we may begin by referring to the relevant extracts of this OM on which not only both sides but even the learned Tribunal has relied. The same read as under-

" .... there is no specific bar in the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated April 10, 1989 or any other related instructions of the Department of Personnel and Training for consideration of retired employees, while preparing year-wise panel(s), who were within the zone of consideration in the relevant year(s). According to legal opinion also it would not be in order if eligible employees, who were within the zone of consideration for the relevant year(s) but are not actually in service when the DPC is being held, are not considered while preparing year-wise of consideration/penal and, consequently, their juniors are considered in their places), who would not have been in the zone of consideration if the DPC(s) had been held in time. This is considered imperative to identify the correct zone of consideration for relevant year(s). Name of the retired officials may also be included in the panel(s). Such retired officials would, however, have no right for actual promotion. The DPC(s) may, if need be, prepare extended panel(s) following the principles prescribed in the Department of Personnel and Training Office Memorandum No.22011/4/98-Estt(D) dated April 9, 1996."

(emphasis supplied)

8. Having noted the extracts of the OM dated 12.10.1998, we may now turn to the relevant findings of the learned Tribunal as