Promotion rights under 1983 Rules remained valid until 31.12.2010; retrospective application barring is irrelevant to promotions earned prior to 2011.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Shakdher, J.

Table of Contents

Preface:

1. The above-captioned writ petitions raise common issues for consideration, although the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal [hereafter referred to as `the Tribunal'1/2] have been passed in separate Original Applications (OAs). For the sake of brevity, the details concerning orders passed in various OAs, which have been assailed in the above-captioned writ petitions, are set forth hereafter:

2. The private respondents arrayed as parties in each of these writ petitions had approached the Tribunal when they were holding the post of either Senior Research Officer (Scientist `C'1/2) [hereafter referred to as "Scientist C"] or Chief Research Officer (Scientist `D'1/2) [hereafter referred to as "Scientist D"] in the Central Soil and Material Research Station [CSMRS]; a scientific organization functioning under the administrative control of Ministry of Water Resources, New Delhi.

2.1. In the OAs filed before the Tribunal, the challenge was laid to the order dated 28.05.2013 passed by CSMRS, Government of India, whereby the representation made for grant of promotion from the date when the private respondents were eligible for promotion to the grade of Scientist `C'1/2/Scientist `D'1/2 under the CSMRS, New Delhi (Group A) posts Recruitment Rules, 1983 [hereafter referred to as `1983 Rules'1/2], was declined. The reason conveyed for rejecting the private respondents' representation via separate orders of even date i.e., 28.05.2013, was that they had been promoted under the Ministry of Water Resources, CSMRS, New Delhi, Group `A'1/2 posts Recruitment Rules, 2010 [hereafter referred to as `2010 Rules'1/2], which specifically forbade retrospective promotion. In this context, the said order alluded to Rule 6(9) of the 2010 Rules.

2.2. Thus, the heart of the controversy obtaining between the contesting parties veers around the issue as to whether the private respondents in respect of their in situ promotions to the grade of Scientist `C'1/2/Scientist `D'1/2 would be governed by the 2010 Rules as contended by the writ petitioner i.e., the Union of India [hereafter referred to as `UOI'1/2] or by the 1983 Rules, as is the case set up by the private respondents and accepted by the Tribunal.

2.3. While examining the issue, one would have to bear in mind the well-established principle, which is, that in situ promotions result in an employee being upgraded from the existing pay scale to a higher pay scale, even while the employee's designation, responsibility and seniority remain unchanged. In that sense, in situ promotion is qualitatively different from a promotion where an employer moves to a higher post.

3. It was, thus, the contention of the private respondents before the Tribunal as well as this Court, that th