CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI O.A. No. 475/2013 O.A No. 477/2013 Reserved on: 12.12.2025 Pronounced on: 06.01 .2026 Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)

Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)

ΟΑ Νο.475/2013 Jai Bhagwan, S/o Late Giani Ram, Group 'B'. Age 63 years, R/o RZE 188. Nihal Vihar, New Delhi-110041 (By Advocate : Mr. Ranjit Sharma)

Versus

1. Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi-110001

2. Joint Secretary (Training), And Chief Administrative Officer, E-

Block Hutments, Dalhousie Road, New Delhi-110001.

(By Advocate : Mr. R K Jain)

OA No.477/2013 Banarsi Dass, S/o Late Het Ram, Group 'B', Age 62 years, R/o H-281, Nanak Pura, New Delhi-110021.

(By Advocate : Mr. Ranjit Sharma)

Versus

1. Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block New Delhi-110001.

2. Joint Secretary (Training) E-Block Hutments, Dalhousie Road. And Chief Administrative Officer New Delhi-110001 (By Advocate : Mr. R K Jain)

ORDER

Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)

These OAs have come before the Tribunal pursuant to remand by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, vide their order dated 31.08.2022 in WP(c) No. 5446/2016

2. The issue raised by the applicants in these two OAs is regarding their promotion to the grade of Deputy Director based on the fact that since post retirement, they were considered for promotion and found fit, the benefit of such promotion cannot be denied to them.

3. The applicants had joined the Armed Forces Headquarters (AFHQ) cadre at different points of time and superannuated while working as Section Officers during the years 2009–2010. Their grievance pertains to non-grant of promotional benefits to the post of Deputy Director.

4. Promotions to the grades of Section Officer and Deputy Director in AFHQ were stalled for a considerable period on account of long-pending litigation. The issue attained finality only after the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 19.02.2008 in AFHQ Officers’

Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

5. In implementation of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a regular Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for the post of Deputy Director for the panel years 2009–10 to 2011–12 was convened under the aegis of UPSC on 09.10.2012. Consequent thereto, the select lists were published on 18.10.2012 and promotion orders were issued on 23.10.2012.

6. Though both the applicants had already superannuated prior to the conduct of the said DPC, they were considered for empanelment for the panel years relevant to the period when they were in service, in terms of the DoP&T OM dated 12.10.1998. Accordingly, their names were included in the select lists for the respective panel years.

7. However, since both the applicants had retired prior to the date of holding of the DPC and issuance of promotion orders, they could not have assumed charge as Deputy Director. As a result, no actual or notional promotional benefits were extended to them. On the other hand, officers who were in service at the time of issuance of promotion orders were promoted as regular Deputy Directors.

8. Aggrieved by non-grant of promotion to the post of Deputy Director, the applicants approached this Tribunal by filing OA No. 475/2013 and OA No. 477/2013, seeking the following relief:-

“i. Quash and set aside the Impugned Order dated

18.01.2013;

ii. direct the respondents to grant notional promotion to the applicant to the grade of Deputy Director from the date person junior to him has been granted promotion to the grade of Deputy Director, with increments and all consequential retiral benefits arising there from.

ii. pass any other Order(s) which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit.”

9. Both the OAs, along with another connected matter, were dismissed by the Tribunal vide common order dated 15.02.2016, holding that though retired officers could be considered for promotion only for the limited purpose of identifying the correct zone of consideration, they could no