AJAY KUMAR vs M/O DEFENCE
- Court
- Central Administrative Tribunal
1 (OA No. 060/1428/2018)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A. No.060/1428/2018
Reserved on: 15.09.2026
Pronounced on: 24.09.2026
HON’BLE SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J)
HON’BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A)
1. MES No. 314813 Ajay Kumar, AAO Aged 56 years son of
Sh. Amar Nath Sood, C/o HQ Chief Engineer, Western
Command, Chandimandir Distt. Panchkula (Haryana) -
134107
2. A No. 5427991 L Balraj Sahani, AAO Aged 49 years son of
Sh. Chaman Lal, C/o HQ Chief Engineer, Western
Command, Chandimandir Distt. Panchkula (Haryana) -
134107
3. MES No. 315031 Ashwani Kumar, AAO Aged 52 years son
of Sh. Parja Ram, C/o Commander Works Engineer,
Western Command, Chandimandir Distt. Panchkula
(Haryana) -134107
4. MES No. 313446 Kailash Rani, AAO (Retd.) Aged 60 years
w/o of Sh. Naresh Kumar, R/o H.No. 2161 Pipliwala Town,
Manimajra Chandigarh. 134114
5. MES No. 314927 Sheela Devi, AAO (Retd.) Aged 60 years
w/o of Sh. Sh.Surinder Kumar, R/o H. No. 1231/20
Haripur Sector 4 Panchkula-134112
6. MES No. 314846 Bikram Jit Singh, AAO Aged 57 years
son of Sh. Bidhi Chand, C/o Garrison Engineer,
Chandimandir Distt. Panchkula (Haryana)-134107
7. MES No. 372425 Amar Singh, AAO Aged 51 years son of
Sh. Sita Ram C/o HQ Chief Engineer, Western Command,
Chandimandir Distt. Panchkula (Haryana) -134107
8. MES No. 314891 Vinod Kumar, AAO Aged 58 years son of
Sh. D.D. Sharma, C/o Garrison Engineer (R&D) Sector 37
Chandigarh-160036
2026.10.16 16:00:30+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL
2 (OA No. 060/1428/2018)
9. MES No. 314658 Surinder Pal, AAO Aged 59 years son of
Sh. Ami Chand, C/o Garrison Engineer (P) Suratgarh,
Rajasthan-335804
10. MES No. 314390 Avtar Singh, AAO Aged 46 years son of
Sh. Naginder Singh, C/o Garrison Engineer (U),
Chandimandir Distt. Panchkula (Haryana)-134107
11. MES No. 315883 Avtar Singh, AAO Aged 56 years son of
Sh. Kehar Singh, C/o Garrison Engineer (P) Air Force,
Airport Road, Chandigarh-160031
12. A No. 6966323K Surinder Kaur, AAO Aged 58 years Wd/o
late Sh. Deep Chand, C/o Garrison Engineer (N) Patiala-
147001
13. MES No. 314403 Sunita Kumari, AAO Aged 52 years wife
of Sh. Vijay Kumar, C/o Garrison Engineer (S) Patiala-
147001
14. MES No. 314691 Daljit Singh, AAO Aged 53 years son of
Sh. Makhan Singh, C/o Garrison Engineer, Military
Station, Amritsar- 143001
15. MES No. 315802 Ranjit Kaur, AAO Aged 50 years wife of
Sh. Raghbir Singh, C/o HQ Commander Works Engineer,
Jalandhar Cantt. 144004
16. MES No. 315514 Balbir Singh, AAO Aged 56 years son of
Sh. Hari Singh, C/o HQ Commander Works Engineer,
Jalandhar Cantt. 144004
17. MES No. 314593 Manjit Kaur, AAO Aged 51 years wife of
Sh. M.L.Bains, C/o Garrison Engineer (U) Jalandhar Cantt.
14004
18. MES No. 8061311 Raj Rani, AAO Aged 47 years wife of
Sh. Jagir Singh, C/o Garrison Engineer (E) Jalandhar
Cantt. 14400y
19. MES No. 314792 Manju Bala, AAO Aged 58 years wife of
Sh. Surinder Pal, C/o Garrison Engineer (E) Jalandhar
Cantt. 144004
20. MES No. 313509 Hardev Sharma, AAO Aged 57 years son
of Sh. Ganga Dhar Sharma, C/o Garrison Engineer Jutogh
Distt. Shimla. -171001
2026.10.16 16:00:30+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL
3 (OA No. 060/1428/2018)
21. MES No. 602037 Jagdeep Singh, AAO Aged 57 years son
of Sh. Mukhtiar Singh, C/o Commander Works Engineer,
Shimla Hills Jutog Distt. Shimla.-171001
22. MES NO. 314312 Jaswant Singh AAO Aged 52 years son
of Sh. Bhagat Ram, C/o Garrison Engineer (West)
Jalandhar Cantt. 44004
23. MES No. 313391 Baldev Singh, AAO, Aged 55 years son
of Sh. Jarnail Singh, C/o Garrison Engineer (South)
Ambala Cantt. 133104 All employees (Group B)
…Applicants
( BY ADVOCATE : Sh. Shailendra Sharma)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence,
South Block, New Delhi-110011.
2. The Engineer in Chief, Army HQ, Kashmir house, New
Delhi-110001.
3. The Chief Engineer, Western Command, Chandimandir,
Distt. Panchkula (Haryana)-134107.
…….…Respondents
( BY ADVOCATE : Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC along with Ms.
Jyotika Panesar)
O R D E R
Per: SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J):
1. This Original Application has been made under Section 19 of
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for quashing of the
Impugned Letter dated 12.11.2018 (Annexure A 4) as well as
impugned letter dated 15.11.2018 (Annexure A 5) issued on
2026.10.16 16:00:30+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL
4 (OA No. 060/1428/2018)
behalf of respondent no. 2 and 3 whereby the benefit of
fixation of pay on account of the promotion of the applicants as
Assistant for the vacancies for the year 2014-15 has been
denied to the applicants on the pretext that that the promotion
is always with prospective effect and not retrospective effect as
the action of the respondents are totally arbitrary, illegal and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and for the
issuance of a directions to the respondents to re-fix the pay of
the applicants w.e.f. 1.4.2014 when the vacancy for the post
of Assistant for the year 2014-15 became operative and the
applicants were promoted against those vacancies and release
the arrear of pay alongwith interest @ 15% p.a.
2. The facts as given in the Original Application are that That
applicants No. 1 to 3 and 6 to 23 are presently working as
Assistant Administrative Officers (AAOs), while applicants No. 4
and 5 retired as AAOs in 2018 on attaining the age of
superannuation. All the applicants were initially appointed as
Lower Division Clerks (LDCs) and were subsequently promoted
as Upper Division Clerks (UDCs) and thereafter as Assistants,
which post has since been re-designated as Assistant
Administrative Officer. Their appointments as LDCs range from
1984 to 1997, and their promotions as UDCs took place
between 2003 and 2004.
3. That the applicants were eligible for further promotion from
UDC to the post of Assistant against the vacancies pertaining
2026.10.16 16:00:30+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL
5 (OA No. 060/1428/2018)
to the year 2014-15 . Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were the
competent authorities for convening the DPC. The duties of
UDC and Assistant were substantially similar, and the post of
Assistant was subsequently re-designated as Assistant
Administrative Officer. As per the consolidated instructions of
the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT), DPCs are
required to be convened at regular annual intervals for existing
as well as anticipated vacancies, and vacancies are to be filled
in accordance with the Recruitment Rules in force on the date
of occurrence of the vacancy, unless subsequently amended
rules are expressly given retrospective effect.
4. That despite the applicants being eligible and there being no
adverse complaint regarding their work and conduct, the
respondents did not convene the DPC for the 2014-15
vacancies until 2018. Consequently, applicants No. 4 and 5
retired on 30.09.2018 from the office of HQ Chief Engineer,
Western Command, Chandimandir, before receiving the benefit
of the promotion pertaining to the earlier vacancy year.
Thereafter, the Director General (Pers), Engineer-in-Chief's
Branch, Army HQ, New Delhi, vide letter dated 30.08.2018
(Annexure A-1) , prepared the Select Panel for promotion
from UDC to Assistant against the 2014-15 vacancies, in which
the applicants' names figured. That pursuant to Annexure A-1,
Respondent No. 3 issued the promotion order dated
06.09.2018, promoting the applicants to the post of Assistant
2026.10.16 16:00:30+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL
6 (OA No. 060/1428/2018)
against the vacancies for the year 2014-15 . However, the
benefit of promotion was granted only prospectively from
06.09.2018 , instead of from the date of the relevant vacancy
year. Applicant No. 1 accordingly submitted a representation
dated 10.10.2018 (Annexure A-3) , requesting that his
promotion and pay be reckoned from 01.04.2014 , as the
select panel was operative with effect from that date. That the
representation of Applicant No. 1 was rejected by the Director
General (Pers), on behalf of Respondent No. 2, vide order
dated 12.11.2018 (Annexure A-4) , merely observing that
promotion is always prospective and therefore pay could not be
fixed retrospectively. The rejection was thereafter
communicated to applicants No. 1, 2 and 7 by letter dated
15.11.2018 (Annexure A-5) , issued by SO-I (Adm) on behalf
of Respondent No. 3. The applicants submit that the denial of
retrospective benefit is particularly unjustified as, in similar
circumstances, Industrial Personnel in MES were promoted on
21.08.2018 (Annexure A-6) against vacancies for 2011-12,
2012-13 and 2013-14, but were granted the benefit from
01.04.2011, 01.04.2012 and 01.04.2013 respectively. That the
applicants' claim is further supported by judicial precedent. In
OA No. 060/01087/2014, K.K. Mujral & Ors. v. UOI &
Ors. , decided on 19.01.2017 (Annexure A-7) , this Hon'ble
Tribunal held that where promotion was delayed despite the
vacancies pertaining to earlier years, the applicants were
2026.10.16 16:00:30+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL
7 (OA No. 060/1428/2018)
entitled to financial benefits from the date of the relevant
vacancy year. Similarly, in OA No. 809/2009, Gauri
Shankar Sharma v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. , the
Principal Bench, vide order dated 05.02.2010, granted the
benefit of financial fixation from the relevant date. Thus, the
applicants seek consequential fixation of pay and financial
benefits with effect from the date of the 2014-15 vacancy year,
rather than merely from the belated date of the promotion
order dated 06.09.2018.
5. The respondents contested the claim of the applicants by filing
a comprehensive written statement whereby they have
submitted that the present O.A. has been filed seeking
quashing of letters dated 12.11.2018 (Annexure A-4) and
15.11.2018 (Annexure A-5) , whereby the applicants’ claim
for fixation of pay on their promotion as Assistant
(redesignated as Office Superintendent) against vacancies of
2014-15 was denied. The applicants further seek refixation of
pay w.e.f. 01.04.2014 with consequential arrears and interest
@ 15% p.a. It is submitted that Para 17.10 and 17.11 of DoPT
OM dated 10.04.1989 provide that promotion becomes
effective from the date of validity of the panel/DPC or the date
of actual promotion, whichever is later ; accordingly, the
applicants cannot claim retrospective fixation merely from the
date of occurrence of vacancies.
2026.10.16 16:00:30+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL
8 (OA No. 060/1428/2018)
6. The respondents submit that it is settled law that an employee
has a right to be considered for promotion but has no vested
right to promotion from the date of occurrence of a vacancy.
The Full Bench of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in
Head Constable Sardul Singh v. Inspector General of
Police, AIR 1970 Punjab 481 , and the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha,
AIR 1973 SC 2216 , have held that the existence of vacancies
or inclusion in a selection/panel does not by itself confer a right
to appointment/promotion. Further, in Union of India v. K.K.
Vadera, AIR 1990 SC 443 , and Union of India v. N.C.
Murali, (2018) 13 SCC 73 , following Nirmal Chandra Sinha
v. Union of India, (2008) 14 SCC 29 , it has been held that,
in the absence of a specific rule, promotion cannot be claimed
retrospectively from the date of occurrence of vacancy and
ordinarily takes effect from the date it is actually granted.
7. That the same principle was reiterated by this Hon’ble Tribunal
in OA No.060/00901/2017, Ankur Sharma v. PGIMER ,
decided on 10.01.2019 , wherein Para 17.11 of the DoPT OM
dated 10.04.1989 was specifically considered and it was held
that promotion is effective from the date of the DPC or the date
of actual promotion, whichever is later. The Tribunal
accordingly dismissed the O.A. Thus, in the present case also,
the applicants are not entitled to retrospective pay fixation
2026.10.16 16:00:30+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL
9 (OA No. 060/1428/2018)
from 01.04.2014 , merely because the vacancies pertained to
the year 2014-15.
8. That the delay in conducting the DPC for promotion from UDC
to Assistant/Office Superintendent was occasioned by
circumstances beyond the control of the respondents. The
Hon’ble High Court of J&K granted a stay on 11.09.2014 in
SWP No.2472/2014, CMA No.3333/2014 concerning the
revised seniority list of UDCs, in which the applicant’s name
also figured. Thereafter, the Hon’ble CAT, Lucknow Bench, by
interim order dated 20.10.2015 in OA No.332/00453/2015 ,
stayed the conduct of the DPC. Further, pursuant to DoPT OM
dated 30.09.2016, DPCs were kept in abeyance pending the
outcome of cases before the Hon’ble Supreme Court
concerning reservation in promotion. A similar proposal relating
to promotion from AO-I to SAO for 2013-14 was also returned
by UPSC on 24.01.2016 to be kept in abeyance as the issue of
“Own Merit” reservation was sub judice. The DPC process
resumed only after DoPT OM dated 15.06.2018 .
9. That the applicants’ promotion/panel is governed by the
applicable DPC recommendations and the promotion became
operative only in accordance with Para 17.11 of the DoPT OM
dated 10.04.1989. The panel was operative from the date of
the DPC up to and including 29.08.2019, while the respondents
have stated that confirmation regarding pay fixation w.e.f.
06.09.2018 may be obtained from E1R, HQ. The judgment
2026.10.16 16:00:30+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL
10 (OA No. 060/1428/2018)
relied upon by the applicants is distinguishable on facts and law
and is not applicable to the present case. The applicants,
therefore, cannot claim pay fixation from 01.04.2014, as such
retrospective benefit would amount to granting promotion/pay
from the date of vacancy rather than from the legally relevant
date of promotion.
10. That in view of the facts, circumstances and settled legal
position stated above, the applicants have no enforceable right
to retrospective promotion or pay fixation from 01.04.2014.
The delay in convening the DPC occurred due to judicial orders
and the pending issue of reservation in promotion, which were
circumstances beyond the respondents’ control. Since the
applicants were entitled to promotion only from the date
prescribed under Para 17.11 of the DoPT OM dated
10.04.1989, the impugned letters dated 12.11.2018
(Annexure A-4) and 15.11.2018 (Annexure A-5) do not
warrant interference. The present O.A. is therefore liable to be
dismissed, with costs.
11. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have
carefully gone through the pleadings on record.
12. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the
impugned letters dated 12.11.2018 (Annexure A-4) and
15.11.2018 (Annexure A-5) are illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory
and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as well as the
principles of natural justice. It was contended that the
2026.10.16 16:00:30+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL
11 (OA No. 060/1428/2018)
applicants were included in the promotion panel prepared by
Respondent No. 2 on 30.08.2018 (Annexure A-1) for promotion
to the post of Assistant against the vacancies pertaining to the
year 2014-15. Since the promotion was against the vacancies
of 2014-15 and the applicants were eligible during the relevant
period, their pay ought to have been fixed with effect from
01.04.2014, and the mere fact that the formal promotion order
was issued in 2018 could not defeat their legitimate claim.
13. Learned counsel further submitted that the delay in convening
the DPC was entirely attributable to the Respondents. The
DoP&T instructions require DPCs to be held regularly and
provide that vacancies are to be filled in accordance with the
Recruitment Rules in force on the date of the vacancy. It was
argued that an employee should not suffer on account of the
Respondents' failure to convene the DPC in time, particularly
when the applicants were otherwise eligible for promotion
against the vacancies of 2014-15. The Respondents, therefore,
could not rely upon the belated date of the promotion order to
deny the applicants the consequential financial benefits from
the date of the relevant vacancies.
14. It was also contended that the Respondents had adopted a
discriminatory approach in denying the applicants the benefit
from the date of vacancy. In identical circumstances, Industrial
Personnel of the Military Engineer Service, promoted from Mate
to Skilled category against vacancies for the years 2011-12,
2026.10.16 16:00:30+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL
12 (OA No. 060/1428/2018)
2012-13 and 2013-14, were granted the benefit of promotion
with effect from 01.04.2011, 01.04.2012 and 01.04.2013
respectively, although their actual promotion order was issued
only on 21.08.2018. Denial of the same benefit to the
applicants, who were similarly situated employees under the
same employer, was therefore alleged to be discriminatory and
violative of Article 14.
15. Learned counsel lastly submitted that the Respondents failed to
consider the judgment dated 19.01.2017 passed by this
Tribunal in OA No. 060/1087/2014, which had granted financial
benefits to retired employees from the date of vacancy
notwithstanding the subsequent issuance of the promotion
order. The said judgment, along with the applicable DoP&T
instructions, was specifically placed before the Respondents
with the representation (Annexure A-3), but was not
considered. It was accordingly urged that the impugned orders
be quashed and the applicants be granted the consequential
benefit of pay fixation and other financial benefits with effect
from 01.04.2014.
16. The learned counsel for the applicants relied upon a recent
order dated 15.09.2025 passed by a Division Bench of this
Tribunal in OA No. 1193/2022 titled Raj Kumar and others Vs.
UOI and Ors. and 4 connected OAs where a similar issue was
adjudicated and the applicants were held entitled to notional
promotion from the date of the vacancy year 2014-15.
2026.10.16 16:00:30+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL
13 (OA No. 060/1428/2018)
17. We have considered the rival submissions and have carefully
examined the pleadings, documents placed on record and the
judgments relied upon by both sides. The undisputed position
is that the applicants were eligible for promotion against the
vacancies pertaining to the year 2014-15 and were ultimately
included in the select panel prepared on 30.08.2018. Pursuant
thereto, they were promoted vide order dated 06.09.2018.
Thus, the delay between the vacancy year and the actual
convening of the DPC is an admitted fact.
18. The question which falls for consideration is not whether the
applicants had an indefeasible right to promotion from the date
of occurrence of the vacancies, but whether, having
subsequently been found fit and selected against the vacancies
of 2014-15, they can be denied the consequential
notional/financial benefit merely because the DPC was
convened belatedly and the formal promotion order was issued
in the year 2018.
19. It is true that ordinarily promotion takes effect from the date
prescribed under the applicable rules/instructions and an
employee cannot claim promotion as a matter of right from the
date on which a vacancy arises. However, the present case has
to be examined in the peculiar factual background in which the
vacancies admittedly pertained to the year 2014-15, the
applicants were eligible against those vacancies, and their
2026.10.16 16:00:30+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL
14 (OA No. 060/1428/2018)
names were subsequently included in the panel prepared for
the said vacancy year.
20. The contention of the respondents that the delay in convening
the DPC was occasioned by various judicial orders and the
issue relating to reservation in promotion has also been
considered. Even if the delay cannot be attributed entirely to
the respondents, the applicants, who had already become
eligible against the vacancies of 2014-15, cannot be placed at
a disadvantage merely because the process of consideration for
promotion was completed several years later, particularly when
they were ultimately selected against the very same vacancy
year.
21. We also find substance in the submission that the distinction
between the date of occurrence of a vacancy and the date of
actual promotion assumes significance in determining the
nature of relief. The applicants are not claiming that they
should be treated as having physically worked on the
promotional post from 01.04.2014. Their claim is essentially for
consequential notional fixation of pay from the relevant
vacancy year, subject to the applicable rules and the principle
of “no work, no pay”, wherever applicable.
22. The subsequent decision dated 15.09.2025 passed by the
Division Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.1193/2022 titled
Raj Kumar and others v. Union of India and others and
2026.10.16 16:00:30+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL
15 (OA No. 060/1428/2018)
connected matters, relied upon by the applicants (operative
paras 13 and 14) reads as under:-
“13. This issue has recently been settled in favour of the applicants
by this Tribunal in a bunch of OAs with leading case titled Sunil Rana
and Others Vs. Union of India and Others (464/2020 decided on
29.07.2025) and also in the case of Krishan Lal Vs. Union of India
and Others (O.A. No. 840/2020 decided on 02.05.2024) holding that
the applicants are entitled to notional promotion and seniority from
the date of the panel year against which they have been promoted
and actual benefits from the date of assumption of the charge of the
higher post.
14. In view of the facts of the case and the law settled on the
issue by way of various judicial pronouncements, as discussed
hereinabove, the applicants are held entitled to notional promotion
from the date of the vacancy year 2014-15. The seniority list dated
02.03.2022 is quashed to the extent it has been prepared by
granting the seniority to the applicants as AAO from the date of
assumption of the said post. The respondents are directed to grant
the consequential benefits like seniority and fixation of pay after
grant of notional increments year wise to the applicants. The
needful be done within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.”
23. In these circumstances, the rejection of the applicants'
representation merely on the general observation that
“promotion is always prospective” does not adequately address
the specific issue raised by the applicants, namely, their
entitlement to consequential notional benefit against the
vacancies of the year 2014-15. The impugned communications
dated 12.11.2018 and 15.11.2018, therefore, cannot be
sustained to the extent that they reject the applicants' claim
without examining the vacancy-year panel and the applicable
precedent.
24. Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed. The impugned
communications dated 12.11.2018 (Annexure A-4) and
15.11.2018 (Annexure A-5) are quashed and set aside. The
2026.10.16 16:00:30+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL
16 (OA No. 060/1428/2018)
respondents are directed to reconsider and grant the applicants
notional promotion/pay fixation with reference to the vacancies
of the year 2014-15, i.e. with effect from 01.04.2014, in
accordance with the applicable rules and instructions and with
all consequential benefits. The exercise shall be completed by
the respondents within a period of three months from the date
of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In view of the facts
and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to
costs.
(ANJALI BHAWRA) (RAMESH SINGH THAKUR)
Member (A) Member (J)
ND*
2026.10.16 16:00:30+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL