CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH Dated this the 17^th day of September, Two Thousand Twenty Five CORAM :

HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN. MEMBER (J)

AND HON'BLE MR. SISIR KUMAR RATHO, MEMBER(A)

R. Haseena Inspector of Central Excise, Office of the Additional Director General of Systems, No.26/1, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai .. Applicant By Advocate Mr. V. Sundareswaran Vs.

1.The Principal Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Zone, No.26/1, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai.

2. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai -1, No.26/1, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai.

3. The Additional Director General of Systems, No.26/1, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai .. Respondents By Advocate Mr. S. Gurumoorthy & Mr. J. Vasu

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)

The applicant has filed the OA for a direction to the respondents to constitute a Review DPC to consider the applicant’s name for grant of promotion to the grade of Superintendent of Central Excise with effect from 23.01.2017, the date on which her junior S.Gnanasekaran was promoted, with all consequential and attendant benefits.

2. Brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant are as follows:

The Applicant is working as Inspector of Central Excise in the respondent department. She was initially promoted to the said post on ad- hoc basis w.e.f.16.05.2008 and subsequently confirmed w.e.f. 09.05.2008. She was due for next promotion as Superintendent of Central Excise in the year 2017. However, her name was not considered by the DPC while her junior was considered and promoted. The applicant gave representation dated 25.01.2017 to the respondent to grant her promotion to the post of Superintendent of Central Excise w.e.f 23.01.2017, the date on which her junior Shri S. Gnanasekaran was promoted which was not considered. Although the applicant was eligible in all respects for promotion to the post of Superintendent of Central Excise, but was deprived. Hence the present OA.

3. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that her promotion to the post of Inspector was unduly delayed due to the respondent department's reluctance to refer her to the Medical Board for height measurement. This delay compelled the applicant to approach this Tribunal. It was further submitted that the applicant was eventually promoted as Inspector on an ad hoc basis with effect from 09.05.2008, the same date her junior was promoted and confirmed vide Establishment Order No. 23/2015 dated 28.04.2015, issued by the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise. Accordingly, her seniority was also fixed from that date. Therefore, having been notionally promoted from the date her junior was promoted, the applicant is deemed to have been in service as Inspector of Central Excise from that date. In light of this, the applicant cannot be denied her due promotion to the next higher post of Superintendent of Central Excise. The period from the deemed date of promotion as Inspector must be counted as qualifying service for her next promotion.

Hence, the respondent’s denial of promotion is legally untenable.

4. Counsel further argued that the respondent's interpretation of the term "notionally" in the promotion order is legally flawed. The department contended that the applicant was not actually promoted on that date, thereby excluding her from consideration for promotion to Superintendent.

However, it was emphasized that a notional promotion at par with a junior implies regular appointment to the post with all consequential benefits, including seniority, pay fixation, and counting of service.

5. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant had made a representation on 25.01.2017, requesting that her name be considered for promotion with effect from the date her junior, Shri S. Gnansekaran, was promoted. However, the respondents’ continued inaction in this regard despite the applicant’s legitimate claim is wholly unjustified and adversely affects her case on merits, thereby in