Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3772

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Shri Krishna, Member (A), Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)
Ritesh Rai – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.691/2019

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vishal Shirke
For the Respondents: N.K. Rajpurohit

No fundamental right to retrospective promotion; employees have only right to be considered. Departmental delay in holding DPC does not entitle eligible candidates to antedated promotions via review DPC.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Central Excise & Customs Department, STA (Group C) Post Recruitment Rules, 2003 - Promotions from Tax Assistant to Senior Tax Assistant - Review DPC empanelled applicants for vacancy year 2012-13 applying senior-junior clause in Note to Recruitment Rules, but promotion dates fixed as 31.10.2013 instead of 01.01.2012 on ground no regular DPC held in 2012-13 - Held, no right to retrospective promotion; employee has only right to be considered for promotion, not to antedated promotion merely on eligibility or departmental delay in holding DPC - Impugned orders upheld as based on review DPC recommendations. (Paras 2.3, 2.4, 7, 8, 10, 11)

(B) Service Law - Right to promotion - No fundamental right to promotion itself; right to be considered for promotion cannot be denied due to departmental inaction in convening DPC, but does not extend to claim for notional/retrospective effect from eligibility date without regular DPC - Inter se seniority protected post-seniority revision. (Paras 8, 9, 10)

Facts of the case:
Applicants, working as Inspectors (Examiners), challenged orders denying promotion to Senior Tax Assistant w.e.f. 01.01.2012 and Inspector (Examiner) w.e.f. 01.01.2014 despite review DPC empanelling them for 2012-13 panel applying senior-junior clause after seniority revision placing direct recruits above compassionate appointee; contended departmental fault in not holding regular DPC in 2012-13 cannot defeat promotion rights.

Findings of Court:
Review DPC considered applicants eligible and empanelled for 2012-13 but fixed promotion date as 31.10.2013 consistent with regular promotion date of even junior compassionate appointee; no discrimination or illegality in denying antedated promotion.

Issues: Whether employees eligible for promotion via senior-junior clause in review DPC are entitled to notional promotion w.e.f. 01.01.2012 despite no regular DPC held that year; scope of right to consideration for promotion vis-à-vis retrospective effect.

Ratio Decidendi: There is no fundamental right to promotion or retrospective effect thereof; right is limited to consideration. Departmental delay in holding DPC does not entitle eligible employees to antedated promotions absent regular DPC; review DPC recommendations fixing promotion from actual date valid.

Result: Original Application dismissed.

Order reserved on : 20.11.2025 Order pronounced on: 23.03.2025 ORDER Per: Shri Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)

The present OA has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:

“8(a) This Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to call for the records of the case from the respondents and after examining the same quash and set aside impugned orders dated 10.01.2019 and 22.07.2019 to the extent the same denies promotion to the applicants to the post of STA w.e.f. 01.01.2012 and promotion to the post of Inspector (Examiner) w.e.f.

01.01.2014.

b. This Hon’ble Tribunal may further be pleased to direct the Mil A an lp h Ja a c n k s s o on DDP3P6CRLDF 0b oo ho iN Nea g f7 cx os at 7: = eai c t tn s t d aC aM : 9 to e Pi 9 l l o2 = 2Cin =y 1 l Dn0 6a I : o N9 s :2F 9nI d c i, 6 f g a e8eJ R O . n m = 0 a 41 e e= 3 c40 a dP tk . 0e h d2 s1 ed1 b e e5 o2 r7 y r s na1 0 f8 o V M u0 3bA n5 e t: ,d i hl lae r p a S9 s o4 l7 h n, 4= i r : b o a O cM J o c n n7 aI f 5 : as D 6 + c t 6 2 oh h3 0 .k2 0 a i8 5 s s 3 2 r0 ' o5 34 d6 n 0 sd4 . o9 h ' f A c 91 6 t 0 u l r6e p5 a m 14 h= , 08 a e 0 S80 n n 8 E23 s t 1 Rb o581I a A871 L69 0 N8a ea4U fcd0M 1 5a8 Be7 458E 8 bR 48d= c2930 6 fd f89 7f205 dd7 4 c1c 83f b 9d8 64b bf0a 1 b 51f 8d6 bc4,, , respondents to promote applicants to the post of Senior Tax Assistant w.e.f. 01.01.2012 in accordance with their empanelment by the review DPC for the vacancy year 2012-13 with all consequential benefits.

c. As a consequence of grant of prayer clause (b) above, this Hon’ble Tribunal may further be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the cases of the applicants for promotion to the post of Inspector (Examiner) for the vacancy year 2014-15 and if found fit, promote them to the said post w.e.f. 01.01.2014 with all consequential benefits.

d. Costs of the application be provided for.

e. Any other and further order as this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit in the nature and circumstances of the case be passed.”

2 . Brief facts of the case, as stated in the OA, are that the applicants initially recruited as Tax Assistant in Mumbai Customs and, thereafter, promoted to the post of Senior Tax Assistant. It is submitted that the appointment to the post of Senior Tax Assistant is governed by provisions of Central Excise & Customs Department, STA(Group C) Post Recruitment Rules, 2003. The said Rules provided that the post of Senior Tax Assistant is to be filled up 100% by promotion. Tax Assistant with 3 years regular service and who have passed departmental examination are entitled to be promoted to the post of Senior Tax Assistant. There is a note under column 12 of the said Recruitment Rules which provides that if a junior person is considered for promotion on the basis of his completing prescribed qualifying period of service in that grade, all persons senior to him shall also be considered for promotion, notwithstanding that they may not have rendered the prescribed qualifying period of service, but have completed the period of probation. The applicants have passed the departmental qualifying examination in the year 2011.

2.1 In the initial seniority lists of Tax Assistants, one Shri Ravi Kad was shown senior to the rest of the applicants as he joined service on compassionate grounds on 03.04.2008 whereas the first direct recruit on 2007 examination batch joined service in May-June, 2009. On the basis of the earlier seniority, the applicants came to be promoted as STA on 31.10.2013 and to the post of Inspector (Examiner)

on 26.12.2016.

2.2 The Hon’ble Supreme in its judgment in the case of N.R. Parmar held that the direct recruits are entitled to be granted seniority of the year in which their recruitment process is initiated. The department initially implemented the judgment in N.R. Parmar by issuing seniority list vide Circular No.25/2016 dated 08.08.2016. However, the department subsequently withdrew the said circular No.25/2016 dated 08.08.2016 vid

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3772

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALShri Krishna, Member (A), Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)Ritesh Rai – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentORIGINAL APPLICATION No.691/2019

No fundamental right to retrospective promotion; employees have only right to be considered. Departmental delay in holding DPC does not entitle eligible candidates to antedated promotions via review DPC.

Cases Referred (1)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Shri Krishna, Member (A), Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)
Ritesh Rai – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.691/2019