Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 12241
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Ranjit More, Chairman, Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Harish Pal Singh, Mohd. Shamim Khan, K.K. Tyagi, T.R. Meena, M.A. Khan, Sher Singh, William Parashar, Ajay Gupta, S.A. Khan, Raj Shekhar, Gauri Shankar – Appellant
Versus
NDMC – Respondent
O.A. No.3019 of 2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri M.K. Bhardwaj
For the Respondents: Shri Vaibhav Agnihotri, Ms. Suruchi Khandelwal, Mr. Amit Yadav
Long-term ad hoc promotions, fulfilling eligibility criteria, must be treated as regular based on the principles of fairness, equity, and judicial precedents.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Promotion of employees - Applicants sought regularization of ad hoc promotions to Executive Engineer (Civil) - Contended that long service of 15-20 years should qualify them for regularization and further promotions - Respondents argued that ad hoc promotions were invalid due to lack of consultation with UPSC as mandated by NDMC Act, 1994 - Tribunal found that the applicants fulfilled eligibility for promotions and had continuously performed duties without interruption. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 18, 19)
(B) Promotion and Regularization - Long-standing ad hoc promotions, if made under eligibility criteria, cannot be denied regular status despite procedural delays - Fundamental rights regarding fair treatment and promotion must be upheld - Judicial precedents uphold that service rendered in such positions must be counted for seniority. (Paras 10, 12, 15)
Facts of the case:
Applicants promoted ad hoc as Executive Engineer (Civil) against substantive vacancies, fulfilling eligibility but denied regularization for years due to delays in holding Departmental Promotion Committees (DPCs). (Paras 3, 11)
Findings of Court:
Court concluded that long service and administrative failures justified treating promotions as regular; directed that benefits be conferred retroactively. (Paras 19)
Issues: Whether long-term ad hoc promotions can be considered regular; whether administrative delays justify denial of promotions. (Para 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that classification based on administrative lapses violates principles of fairness and equality provided under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Regularization is warranted for ad hoc service rendered when fulfilling eligibility criteria. (Paras 18, 19)
Result: Original Application allowed; promotions to be treated as regular, DPCs to be convened for further promotions. (Para 19)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. promotion claims based on ad hoc tenure. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. citing precedent cases for regularization of promotions. (Para 4) |
| 3. respondents' failure to conduct timely dpc. (Para 5) |
| 4. arbitrary state actions violate article 14. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 5. regularization of ad hoc service for seniority rights. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. orders for regularizing promotions and timely dpc. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
ORDER
Hon’ble Mr. RajinderKashyap, Member (A):
By filing the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , the applicants are seeking the following reliefs:-
“(a) To declare the action of respondents in not treating the applicants promotion to the post of EE (C) as regular from the date of grant of Adhoc promotion as illegal and issue appropriate direction to the respondents to treat the Adhoc promotion of applicants as EE (C) as regular and fix their seniority as EE (C) from the date of grant of Adhoc promotion as EE (C).
(b) To direct the respondents to treat the promotion of applicants to the post of EE as regular and consider their claim for further promotion to the post of SE (C), Addl. Chief Engineer (C) & Chief Engineer (C) by holding yearwise DPC and subject to meeting the eligibility criteria as per rules.
(c) To allow the OA with cost.”
2. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have filed their replies opposing the claim of the applicants.
FACTS OF THE CASE
3. It is stated by the applicants that all the applicants, except applicant no. 5, were initially appointed as Assistant Engineer (Civil) [AE (C)] through the direct recruitment process. Applicant no.5 was initially appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) and was subsequently promoted to the post of AE (C).
3.1 The respondents, upon noting the appointments of the applicants, fixed their seniority in the grade of AE (C) (degree holders and diploma holders) as on 16.04.2004 (Annexure A-3).
3.2 After completing eight (8) years of regular service as AE (C), the applicants became eligible for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) [EE (C)] in terms of the statutory Recruitment Rules for EE (C) (Annexure A-3, pp. 53–54), titled Recruitment Regulations for the post of Executive Engineer (Civil), New Delhi Municipal Council, 2004. The relevant portion reads as under:
| Method of Recruitment, whether by direct recruitment or by promotion or by deputation/absorption and percentage of the posts to be filled by various methods | Promotion failing which by deputation including short term contract. |
| In case of recruitment by promotion/deputation/absorpt ion, grade from which promotion/deputation/ absorption to be made | ( A D O ( (i) 50% by promotion of Assistant Engineers (Civil) with 8 years regular service in the grade and possessing a degree in Civil Engineering from a recognised university / institution or equivalent. ii) 50% by promotion of Assistant Engineers (Civil) with 10 years regular service in the grade and possessing diploma in civil engineering from a recognized University / Institution or equivalent. Note:- Where Juniors who have completed their qualifying/eligibility service are being considered for promotion, their seniors would also be considered provided they are not short of the requisite qualifying/eligibility service by more than half of such qualifying/eligibility service or two years, whichever is less and have successfully completed their probation period for promotion to the next higher grade along with their juniors who have already completed such qualifying/eligibility service. s per the existing guidelines on framing /amendment of RRs circulated by DoP&T vide their O.M. No.AB1401/48/2010-Estt.(RR) dated 31.12.2010, DoP&T’s OM No.AB.14017/2/1997- Estt.(RR)/Pt. dated the 19.01.2007 and also keeping in view the DTL scales.) eputation (including short term contract):- fficers under the Central/State Governments/Union Territories/Universities/ Recognised Research Institutions/Pu |
