Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 12915
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr. Manish Garg, J, Dr. Anand S. Khati, A
Shri Bir Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India Through Secretary (Defence) – Respondent
O.A. No. 2732/2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. I.S. Yadav
For the Respondents: Mr. Sona Kumar
Retrospective promotions are not permissible; promotions take effect from the date of official grant, not from the date a vacancy occurs.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Request for notional promotion after retirement - The applicant challenged the rejection of his promotion request on the grounds of delayed DPC process due to pandemic, and sought legal remedy for retrospective promotion and benefits - Timely DPC was not held due to administrative failures, conditioning eligibility for promotion - Court held that promotion can be granted prospectively from date of order, not retrospectively. (Paras 7, 10-11)
(B) Promotion and Retrospective Rights - It was established that no legal principle entitles a retired employee with retrospective promotion based on vacancy creation as promotions must follow assessment timelines - The responsibility for delays was attributed to external factors, namely the pandemic, which the court recognized as beyond the departmental control. (Paras 10-14)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, who worked for over 41 years, claims rights to notional promotion after retirement, justifying that delays in conducting DPC denied him rightful benefits. He cites various case laws and DoPT guidelines supporting timely promotions.
Findings of Court:
The court acknowledged the delays were outside the respondents' control, emphasizing promotions must be from the date of issuance based on service tenure.
Issues: The primary issue revolved around the implications of DPC delays and the right to retrospective promotion.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicant's claim for notional promotion lacked merit, as it is crucial that a promotion can only take effect from the date it is officially granted, not before retirement.
Result: O.A. dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant challenges promotion denial (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments concerning dpc delays (Para 3 , 5) |
| 3. court observations on promotion rules (Para 6 , 8 , 10) |
| 4. principles governing promotion timelines (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. final ruling on promotion dismissal (Para 14 , 15) |
ORDER
Hon’ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
In the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985, the applicant has impugned the letter dated 20.08.2022 by which his request for promotion after retirement has been rejected by the respondents. By virtue of this O.A., the applicant has sought for the following reliefs:-
“(i) By an appropriate direction impugned order dated 20 Aug 2022 (Annexure A-1) be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside : and
(ii) By an order or direction respondents may be directed to grant the Notional Promotion from the date of vacancy arise, fix the pay on promotion, revise PPO and make payment of difference of retiral benefits : and
(iii) To grant the interest of 18% on arrears; and
(iv) To award exemplary costs: and
(v) Any other relief which is found just and proper be passed in favour of the applicant in the interest of justice.”
2. Brief facts of the case as narrated by learned counsel for the applicant are as under:-
2.1 The applicant initially joined as Mazdoor on 24.06.1980 in Military Engineering Service and thereafter promoted upto the post of Highly Skilled-I (HS-I). He superanuated from service on 31.10.2021 on completion of 41 years qualifying service.
2.2 According to the applicant, he was eligible for promotion as MCM and his name was also in the select panel of MCM, however, the respondents completed the DPC for vacancy year 2021 in June, 2022. In the meanwhile, the applicant retired from service on 31.10.2021 on attaining the age of superannuation, without promotion to the post MCM.
2.3 Thereafter, the applicant submitted representation dated 02.08.2022 to the respondents for notional promotion as he was in service when the vacancy arose in the year 2021 as the delay has been on the part of the respondents, he should not be punished. He has also challenged the delay in DPC.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the respondents failed to adhere to the model calendar issued to conduct the DPC timely in violation of guidelines issued by the DoPT vide OMs dated 08.09.1998 and 14.12.2000; and for such failure on the part of the respondents, the applicant cannot be denied promotion and put to irreparable financial loss for whole life. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following case laws:
(i) Apex Court’s Judgment dated 31.07.2015 in Civil Appeal No.811/2007 titled Ramesh Kumar vs Union of India & Ors., wherein it has been held that the principle of ‘no work no pay’ would not be attracted where the respondents were in fault in not considering the case of the appellant for promotion and not allowing the appellant to work on a post of Naib Subedar carrying higher pay scale.
(ii) High Court of Manipur Judgment dated 26.05.2022 in WP(C) No. 592 of 2021 titled Shri Ahongshangbam Tomba Singh vs The State of Manipur & Ors. wherein it has been held that due to arbitrary exercise of power in not holding the DPC in time by the authority, admittedly, the petitioner will retire below one rank than the one which ought to have been made available during his long career in the department due to want of qualifying service. Therefore, in the interest of justice and in equity to direct the respondent authorities to give notional promotion to the petitioner; and
(iii) Order dated 28.08.2019 passed by Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 524/2016 titled R.K. Kawatra vs Union of India & Ors., wherein it was held that the DPC were not held in time. The respondents were directed to conduct a review DPC to consider promotion of the applicant therein to EE fresh with respective years of vacancy, PPO may also be revised accordingly and payment of differ
