Retrospective promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right when disciplinary proceedings or penalties were operative at the time of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) assessment, and promotions against belated DPCs, under standard administrative guidelines, are required to be implemented only on a prospective basis.

ORDER

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

The present Original Application has been filed challenging the impugned Order dated 06.10.2023 issued by the Respondent, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, whereby the Applicant was promoted from the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) to Assistant Engineer (Civil) only prospectively and was denied retrospective promotion and consequential seniority from the date of occurrence of vacancy or from the date of his ad-hoc promotion. The name of the Applicant appears at Serial No. 189 of the impugned order. It is the case of the Applicant that the sole ground for denying him retrospective promotion was the alleged pendency of departmental proceedings, which subsequently stood quashed by judicial orders and, therefore, could not have been relied upon to deny him promotional benefits.

2. It is submitted on behalf of the Applicant that the Respondent failed to convene regular Departmental Promotion Committees for more than a decade despite availability of vacancies and has failed to furnish any justification for such prolonged delay. The Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondent is stated to be completely silent on this aspect and only seeks to justify denial of retrospective promotion on account of disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Applicant. It is contended that once the said proceedings stood quashed, the Respondent could not deny promotion from the relevant vacancy year or panel year on the basis of proceedings which no longer survive in the eyes of law. The denial of legitimate service benefits on the basis of quashed proceedings is stated to be arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable. It is further argued that even assuming that the Applicant may not be entitled to seniority from the date of ad-hoc promotion in the year 2013, there was no justification for denying him promotion at least from the date when the vacancy arose and similarly situated officers were considered.

3. Learned counsel for the Applicant further submitted that a chargesheet bearing No. 1/66/2008/CPC/Vig./DA-III/09/64 dated 16.01.2009 was issued to the Applicant which culminated in imposition of penalty vide Order dated 01.09.2011 reducing his pay by two stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect. The appeal preferred by the Applicant before the Hon’ble Lt. Governor of Delhi was rejected vide Order dated 19.10.2013 communicated on 06.12.2013. Aggrieved thereby, the Applicant approached this Hon’ble Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 840/2014, wherein the chargesheet was quashed vide Order dated 06.05.2016. The said order was subsequently upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide Order dated 16.09.2019 passed in W.P. (C) No. 634/2017. Pursuant thereto, the Respondent itself passed Order dated 02.12.2019 dropping the charges and penalties against the Applicant. It is therefore submitted that once the chargesheet and consequential penalty orders stood quashed, the very basis for denying retrospective promotion ceased to exist.

4. It is also submitted that another chargesheet bearing No. 3/20/2017/Vig./P/2021/58 was served upon the Applicant only on 03.02.2020 and culminated in a penalty order dated 30.07.2021. However, according to the Applicant, the said proceedings have no bearing on the present case since the vacancies against which the Applicant seeks consideration had arisen much prior to 03.02.2020 and therefore such subsequent proceedings could not have been relied upon to deny him promotion against earlier vacancy years.

5. Counsel for the Applicant further submitted that the Respondent’s failure to hold timely DPCs caused grave prejudice and sta