An employee who performs duties of a higher post for an extended period due to administrative delay in finalizing rules is entitled to substantive promotion from the date duties were first discharged, with notional benefits for seniority and consequential promotions.

Headnote:(A) Jammu and Kashmir Estates Subordinate Service Recruitment Rules, 1997 - Rule 10 - Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Promotional avenues - The tribunal considered the validity of differential treatment meted out to an employee who was made to work on a higher post for an extended period without substantive regularization, and the selective adoption of draft recruitment rules for some categories but not others. (Paras 21-25)

(B) Service Law - Promotion - Right to fair consideration - No employee has an indefeasible right to promotion, but every eligible employee has a right to fair and timely consideration. Where an employee is deprived of consideration due to administrative inaction or delay in finalizing rules, the employee should not suffer. (Paras 27-28)

Facts of the case:
The applicant was initially appointed as a Telephone Operator in 1998. He was placed as a Receptionist on 07.08.2009 and continued to work in that capacity. He was granted charge allowance only from 2012. The applicant sought regularization as Receptionist from 07.08.2009 and consequential promotion to the post of Estates Officer. During the pendency of the matter, the recruitment rules were finalized and the applicant was promoted as Receptionist substantively from 30.03.2012 and later as Estates Officer on 30.07.2021. The grievance was that his regularization should have been from 07.08.2009, which would have made him eligible for promotion to Estates Officer earlier.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the respondents admitted the applicant worked as Receptionist since 2009 and his right to promotion to Estates Officer was protected by keeping one post reserved. The court held that administrative delay in finalizing rules cannot defeat a legitimate claim of an employee who performed higher duties. The court directed that the applicant be treated as substantively promoted as Receptionist from 07.08.2009 for purposes of seniority, with consequential notional promotion to Estates Officer from the date of eligibility, but with actual monetary benefits restricted to periods of actual discharge of duties. (Paras 18-36)

Issues: The main issues were whether an employee who performed duties of a higher post from a specific date is entitled to substantive promotion from that date, and whether the selective adoption of draft recruitment rules by the department was discriminatory.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that where an employee has been continuously performing duties of a higher post and the department's delay in finalizing rules is the only cause for non-regularization, the employee should be granted promotion from the date duties were first discharged. The principle of fairness under Articles 14 and 16 requires consistent treatment of similarly situated employees. Result : Transfer Application allowed with directions for re-fixation of seniority and notional promotion benefits, subject to adjustment of allowances already paid. (Paras 36-37)

Table of Content
1. transfer and registration of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 7)
2. summary of the facts and pleadings. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. applicant's factual and legal claims for promotion. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. respondents' reply and admissions. (Para 16 , 17 , 18)
5. court's analysis on fairness and delay. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
6. final order granting relief. (Para 36 , 37)

ORDER

Per: - Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member

1. The SWP No.537/2018 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.7420/2020 by the Registry of this Tribunal.

2. The present matter was filed before the Hon’ble High Court seeking following relief: -

a) “Writ, order of direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to adopt the draft rules finalized in the meeting of the Standing Committee held on 28th January, 2016 read with the Standing Committee meeting dated 29th June, 2017 for promotion to the post of Receptionist and Estates Officer on the same analogy, as has been done in the case of Junior Engineer (Civil) vide Government Order No.12-Estat of 2016 dated 17th February, 2016;

b) Writ, order of direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to regularize the petitioner as Receptionist w.e.f. the date he is holding the charge of the post with all consequential benefits either in accordance with the draft rules or while exercising power under Rule 10 of the J&K Estates Subordinate Service Recruitment Rules, 1997;

c) Writ, order of direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Estates Officer in the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 + Grade Pay 4260;

d) Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents along with cost.

3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioner in his pleadings are as follows: -

a) The present Transfer Application arises out of SWP No. 537/2018, which was originally filed by the applicant before the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu and, upon transfer, came to be registered before this Tribunal as T.A. No. 7420/2020.

b) The applicant, namely Daljit Singh Manhas, was initially appointed as Telephone Operator in the Estates Department vide Government Order No. 338-GAD of 1998 dated 17.03.1998. The post of Telephone Operator was borne on the cadre of the Jammu and Kashmir Estates Subordinate Service governed by the J&K Estates Subordinate Service Recruitment Rules, 1997.

c) The grievance of the applicant is that under the existing Recruitment Rules, there were no adequate promotional avenues available to the post of Telephone Operator. According to the applicant, despite rendering long service, he remained without any meaningful avenue of advancement in the cadre.

d) The applicant was thereafter placed as Receptionist vide Order No. 480-DE of 2009 dated 07.08.2009. The said placement was made in his own pay and grade, and he has been discharging the duties of Receptionist since the said date. It is pleaded that the post of Receptionist is higher in status and responsibility than the post of Telephone Operator. However, according to the applicant, he was not substantively regularized against the said post from the date he started performing the duties of Receptionist.

e) It is further pleaded that the applicant was granted charge allowance only with effect from the year 2012, though he had been continuously functioning as Receptionist since 07.08.2009. The applicant contends that denial of regular promotion/regularization as Receptionist from 07.08.2009 has adversely affected his further promotional prospects, particularly for consideration to the post of Estates Officer.

f) The applicant has relied upon the judgment pa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5915

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL10581/2020T.A./7420/2020

An employee who performs duties of a higher post for an extended period due to administrative delay in finalizing rules is entitled to substantive promotion from the date duties were first discharged, with notional benefits for seniority and consequential promotions.

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
10581/2020
T.A./7420/2020