Promotion to an upgraded post under central excise rules is governed by the zone of consideration and seniority-cum-fitness, not merely by length of service; and claims are barred by delay and laches if not challenged promptly.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Equality before law - Central Excise & Customs - Promotion/Upgradation - Recruitment Rules - Seniority-cum-fitness - Eligibility - Zone of consideration. (Paras 15, 21, 36, 39, 65, 68)

(B) Service Law - Promotion - Upgradation - The principle that length of service alone confers an automatic right to promotion is untenable - Promotion must be in accordance with Recruitment Rules, based on seniority-cum-fitness, subject to availability of vacancies and within the zone of consideration - Inter-commissionerate transferees, though entitled to count past service for eligibility, are placed at the bottom of the seniority list and cannot claim promotion above their seniors. (Paras 65, 66)

(C) Service Law - Delay and Laches - Fence-sitters - Persons who do not challenge an alleged wrong within a reasonable time and wake up only after others succeed are not entitled to claim the benefit of a judgment - Reliance placed on State of Uttar Pradesh vs Arvind Kumar Shrivastav (2015) 1 SCC 347. (Paras 29, 41, 69)

(D) Judicial Precedent - Judgment in rem vs in personam - A judgment is not necessarily in rem merely because it benefits a group of litigants - Subsequent judicial clarification on the scope of implementation binds the parties. (Paras 27, 29, 42, 70)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, an Inspector in Central Excise, superannuated as Assistant Commissioner. He sought promotion/upgradation to Superintendent w.e.f. 30.09.1996 on the basis of completion of 17 years of service, relying on the judgment in I.C. Joshi & Ors. vs Union of India. The applicant had been an inter-commissionerate transferee and was placed at Sl. No. 204 in the seniority list. The respondents, implementing the judgment, issued Establishment Order No. 21/2018 but did not include the applicant, granting the benefit instead to officers considered to be within the zone of consideration. The applicant challenged this exclusion, claiming it was arbitrary and violative of Article 14.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the applicant misinterpreted the judgment in I.C. Joshi’s case, which only allowed counting of past service for eligibility, not as a standalone right to promotion. Promotions to upgraded posts must follow Recruitment Rules based on seniority-cum-fitness, with applicants considered within the zone of consideration. The applicant, being at Sl. 204, was far below the zone of consideration for the 09 upgraded posts in 1996. The court also found the claim to be vitiated by delay and acquiescence, as the applicant did not challenge the 1996 promotion order in time and only acted after others succeeded.

Issues: The main issues were whether completion of 17 years of service confers an automatic right to promotion to the upgraded post of Superintendent; whether the applicant was entitled to be included in Establishment Order No. 21/2018; and whether the claim was barred by delay and laches.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that promotion is governed by Recruitment Rules and the zone of consideration; mere length of service is not a sole criterion. Inter-commissionerate transferees, even with past service counted for eligibility, are placed at the bottom of the seniority list and cannot supersede their seniors. Furthermore, persons who approach the court after substantial delay are fence-sitters and not entitled to relief. Result : Original Application dismissed. No order as to costs. Refer to: (Paras 64-71). Judgment pronounced on: 01.04.2026.

Table of Content
1. original application seeks promotion benefits from 1996. (Para 1)
2. factual background: applicant's service, stagnation policy, and prior litigation. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. applicant's core arguments: entitlement via principles of parity and finality. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. official respondents' arguments: promotions per high court interpretation and seniority. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
5. private respondents' arguments: applicant is a fence-sitter and zone of consideration inapplicable. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
6. applicant's rejoinder: judgments are in rem and discrimination under article 14. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48)
7. additional affidavit: detailed chronology and reasons for denying promotion. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62)
8. court's note: commencement of its analysis after hearing both parties. (Para 63)
9. applicant's claim based on incorrect reading of i.c. joshi; promotion governed by recruitment rules and seniority. (Para 65)
10. applicant outside zone of consideration due to low seniority. (Para 66)
11. relief granted to juniors via specific orders, not creating a right to negative equality. (Para 67)
12. article 14 cannot bypass statutory rules; action of respondents not discriminatory. (Para 68)
13. applicant barred by delay and laches as a fence-sitter. (Para 69)
14. oa dismissed: no legal right established; implementation of judgments correct. (Para 70 , 71)

ORDER

Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J):

1.The present OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs:-

“(i) quash and set aside the action of respondents in not placing the applicant in the Establishment Order No.21/8 dated 16.02.2018 whereas, name of many of his juniors have been incorporated;

(ii) direct the respondents to give the benefit of promotion/upgradation to the level of Superintendent w.e.f. 30.09.1996 i.e. the date from which the juniors were promoted along with all other benefits viz. fixation of pay, arrears, seniority and revision of pension etc.

(iii) May also pass any further order(s), direction(s) as be deemed just and proper to meet the ends of justice.”

2. The brief facts as narrated by the applicant in this OA are that the applicant is a citizen of India and a retired Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise who superannuated on 30.04.2015. The applicant is aggrieved by the denial of benefit of promotion/upgradation to the post of Superintendent in Customs & Central Excise w.e.f. 30.09.1996, the date on which many of his juniors were promoted/upgraded on the basis of completion of more than 17 years of service in the grade of Inspector. The applicant was similarly placed, having rendered the requisite 17 years of service in the grade of Inspector. The post of Superintendent, Customs & Central Excise is a Group B post.

3. The applicant initially joined the Customs & Central Excise Department as an Inspector on 12.12.1978 after qualifying the All India Examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission and was allotted Bombay Collectorate at the relevant time. In accordance with the prevalent policy and instructions dated 20.05.1980 issued by the office of respondent no.2, the applicant applied for Inter- Collectorate (now Commissionerate) transfer to Delhi in the office of respondent no.3. The said request was acceded to, and the applicant joined the post of Inspector in Delhi on 02.04.1982. He was placed at the bottom of the seniority list of direct recruits of that year, i.e., 1982, at Sl. No. 204. The applicant does not dispute his seniority and is not claiming any benefit on that account.

4. It is submitted that due to acute stagnation in the cadre of Inspectors, the office of respondent no.2, with the approval of the Central Government, framed a policy whereby certain posts of Inspector were upgraded to the level of Superintend

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4391

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL11531/2018O.A./4600/2018

Promotion to an upgraded post under central excise rules is governed by the zone of consideration and seniority-cum-fitness, not merely by length of service; and claims are barred by delay and laches if not challenged promptly.

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
11531/2018
O.A./4600/2018