Notional promotion granted without financial benefits confirmed due to procedural delays affecting eligibility.

JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 24^th day of March 2026)

Basant Balaji J., The Union of India, along with 3 others filed this Writ Appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge, wherein they were directed to give notional promotion as Chief Draftsman to the respondent herein, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. 2. Having retired as a Senior Draftsman from the General Reserve Engineer Force on 30.04.2019, the respondent was eligible for promotion to the next career grade of Chief Draftsman within the ₹9,300 – 34,800 pay band (Grade Pay ₹4,200). Despite being fully qualified and having his name included in the 2017 promotion list, he was never formally appointed to the position prior to his superannuation.

Consequently, he exited the service upon retirement without having attained the promotional rank for which he had been previously shortlisted.

3. The respondent contends that had the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) been convened in a timely manner, his eligibility would have ensured his advancement to the post of Chief Draftsman. He maintains that the delay in the administrative process effectively deprived him of a promotion he was otherwise qualified to receive. Consequently, seeking redress for this grievance, he approached this Court with the writ petition.

4. In a counter-affidavit filed by the 3rd appellant, it was contended that the DPC (promotion) could not be convened earlier due to pending litigation before the Apex Court. Although interim orders dated 17.05.2018 and 05.06.2018 eventually granted clearance to proceed, and a promotion proposal including the respondent’s name was submitted on 5.11.2018, the process was further delayed due to a request for additional clarifications. Consequently, the DPC was not finalized until 16.08.2019; nearly four months after the respondent’s superannuation on 30.04.2019. While the respondent’s juniors were successfully promoted during this session, he was excluded from the promotion list solely on the grounds of his intervening retirement.

5. Counsel for the petitioner confined the reliefs that the respondent was seeking neither financial benefits nor a retrospective appointment with back pay, but rather a strictly notional promotion. Considering this submission and the fact that such a promotion would impose no financial burden on the appellants, the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition.

Consequently, the Court directed the appellants to grant the respondent a notional promotion to the rank of Chief Draftsman within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

6. The counsel appearing for the respondent reiterated the said aspect in the present appeal as well. It is found that implementing the learned Single Judge’s judgment would merely result in the respondent retiring with the title of Chief Draftsman "in name only," without any financial benefits. Hence, we do not find any fault with the judgment of the learned Single Judge in granting notional promotion devoid of monetary benefits. Therefore, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed.

Suffice it to say, it is based strictly on the peculiar facts and circumstances of this specific case, we dismiss the Writ Appeal confirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge directing notional promotion of the respondent. It is further clarified that this judgment is confined to the facts of this case and shall not serve as a precedent for future litigation.