Prem Chand vs Technical Education,u.t.

1 (OA No. 1280/2019)


CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH

Reserved on: 23.09.2026
Pronounced on : 30.09.2026

OA No. 1280/2019
HON’BLE SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J)
HON’BLE MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER(A)

Prem Chand son of Sh. Gopi Chand age 59 years working as
Senior Assistant in the office of Chandigarh College of
Architecture, Sector-12, Chandigarh-160012.
……… Applicant

( By Advocate : Sh. Rishav Sharma)

VERSUS

1. The Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, Sector-6,
Punjab Raj Bhawan, Chandigarh-160007.

2. The Home Secretary-cum-Secretary, Technical Education,
Chandigarh Administration, U.T. Secretariat, Sector: 9,
Chandigarh.

3. The Principal, Chandigarh College of Architecture, Sector-12,
Chandigarh-160012.
………Respondents
( BY Advocate : Sh. Gagandeep Toni)

O R D E R

Per: SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J):


1. The present Original Application under Section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is directed against Office
Order dated 13.06.2019 (Annexure A-1) whereby the
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:56:55+05'30'

2 (OA No. 1280/2019)

representation of applicant for promotion to the post of
Superintendent Grade-I which is lying vacant since April,
2016 and he being senior most Senior Assistant and eligible
since 02.02.2017 and looking after the post of Superintendent
since 03.10.2018 has been declined by an incompetent
authority.
2. The applicant has sought the following relief(s):-
(i) That the impugned Order dated 13.06.2019 (Annexure A-1) be
quashed and set-aside, in the interest of justice.
(ii) That the respondents be directed to promote the applicant to the post
Superintendent which is lying vacant since March, 2016, either w.e.f.
February-2017 by taking 7 years service as Senior Assistant from the
date regular promotion w.e.f. 02.02.2010, or w.e.f. February-2016 by
taking 7 years service as Senior Assistant from ante-date March,
2009.
(iii) That the applicant be held entitled to all consequential benefits and
reliefs from the due dates, in the interest of justice.

3. The facts as projected by the applicant are that The Applicant
joined as Lecture Assistant on 11.12.1981 in the College of
Architecture and was promoted as Junior Assistant in 1991.
He is a physically handicapped person having 40% permanent
disability, supported by the Disability Certificate dated
06.02.2014 (Annexure A-2) . Under the applicable rules, a
Junior Assistant with five years’ service becomes eligible for
promotion as Senior Assistant; accordingly, the Applicant
became eligible in 1996. However, no promotion was made as
no vacancy was available. The relevant Rules/Schedule are
annexed as Annexure A-3 .
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:56:55+05'30'

3 (OA No. 1280/2019)

4. A post of Senior Assistant became vacant in March 2009. At
that time, the Applicant was at Serial No. 3 in the seniority
list, and the reservation roster showed that the vacancy was
earmarked for a physically handicapped candidate. Despite
this, the respondents did not convene the DPC in time,
resulting in delay in the Applicant’s promotion. The
Reservation Roster dated 05.06.2009 is annexed as
Annexure A-4 . The DPC was eventually held in January
2010, and the Applicant was promoted as Senior Assistant
w.e.f. 02.02.2010 on adhoc basis against the handicapped
quota, vide Office Order dated 02.02.2010 (Annexure A-5) .
5. Subsequently, following the decision in the writ cases referred
to in the promotion order, the respondents regularized the
Applicant’s adhoc promotion as Senior Assistant w.e.f.
02.02.2010 vide Office Order dated 08.12.2014 (Annexure
A-6) . Thereafter, the Applicant was assigned look-after
charge of Superintendent in addition to his own duties vide
Office Order dated 03.10.2018 (Annexure A-7) .
6. Under the UT Chandigarh Employees Rules, 1992, notified on
13.01.1992 and effective from 01.04.1991, the service
conditions of UT Chandigarh employees are to be governed by
the corresponding Punjab Civil Services rules/orders. The said
Notification is annexed as Annexure A-8 . Under the
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:56:55+05'30'

4 (OA No. 1280/2019)

applicable Punjab rules, the post of Superintendent Grade-I
was to be filled 100% by promotion from Senior Assistants
having 10 years’ regular service. However, vide Punjab
Government instructions dated 08.08.2019 ( Annexure A-9 ),
the qualifying service for posts requiring 10 years was
reduced to 7 years.
7. The Applicant submitted a representation dated 07.02.2019
( Annexure A-10 ), seeking that his promotion as Senior
Assistant be treated from March 2009 instead of 02.02.2010,
and further sought promotion as Superintendent Grade-I,
against a post stated to have been vacant since April 2016,
claiming eligibility and seniority. His claim for retrospective
promotion as Senior Assistant was rejected through the
impugned Office Order dated 06.06.2019/13.06.2019, which
the Applicant contends was issued by an incompetent
authority; the relevant DPC guidelines referred to therein,
contained in DoPT OM dated 10.04.1989, are annexed as
Annexure A-11 .
8. After the Punjab Government reduced the qualifying service to
seven years, the Applicant again represented on 26.08.2019
for promotion as Superintendent Grade-I, bringing the
notification dated 08.08.2019 to the notice of Respondent
No.3 ( Annexure A-12 ). The Applicant relies upon successive
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:56:55+05'30'

5 (OA No. 1280/2019)

DoPT instructions emphasizing timely convening of DPCs and
advance preparation of promotion panels, including OMs
dated 08.09.1998 (Annexure A-13), 14.12.2000
(Annexure A-14), 11.03.2011 (Annexure A-15),
28.01.2015 (Annexure A-16), 23.04.2015 (Annexure A-
17) and 27.10.2016 (Annexure A-18) . These instructions
stress adherence to the prescribed DPC calendar and state
that administrative delay in holding DPCs affects employees’
career progression.
9. The Applicant therefore contends that the respondents’ failure
to convene the DPC in time and to consider him for promotion
as Senior Assistant from March 2009 and thereafter as
Superintendent Grade-I is arbitrary and contrary to the
applicable rules and DoPT instructions. According to the
Applicant, the delay was attributable to administrative laxity
and was not due to circumstances beyond the respondents’
control. On this basis, the Applicant has approached the
Hon’ble Tribunal seeking appropriate relief against the
respondents’ action.
10. The respondents contested the claim of the applicant by filing
a written statement. The Respondents submit that the
Applicant joined the College of Architecture, Chandigarh as
Lecture Assistant on 11.12.1981 and was placed as Junior
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:56:55+05'30'

6 (OA No. 1280/2019)

Assistant in 1991. The post of Senior Assistant fell vacant on
04.03.2009 after the demise of Shri Gurkirtan Kumar.
Following due procedure, the Applicant was promoted as
Senior Assistant against the reserved Physically Handicapped
post on 02.02.2010, subject to the outcome of certain writ
petitions. His promotion was subsequently regularised w.e.f.
02.02.2010 vide order dated 08.12.2014 ( Annexure R-1 and
R-2 ).
11. It is further submitted by the respondents that the Applicant,
while working under the Inter-Department Transfer Policy at
Government College of Education, Sector-20, Chandigarh,
was given additional charge of Superintendent Grade-I on
03.10.2018 as a stop-gap arrangement ( Annexure R-3 ).
Meanwhile, Shri Ashok Kumar Malhotra, Superintendent
Grade-I, retired on 31.03.2016, and Ms. Himanti Devi worked
against the post from 13.05.2016. The Applicant submitted a
representation dated 07.02.2019, seeking ante-dated
promotion as Senior Assistant from March 2009 so as to
become eligible for promotion as Superintendent Grade-I
before his superannuation in December 2019. The
representation was rejected on 13.06.2019, which is
challenged in the present O.A.
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:56:55+05'30'

7 (OA No. 1280/2019)

12. The Respondents contend that the Applicant has no valid
cause of action and that his claim for counting Senior
Assistant service from March 2009, instead of 02.02.2010, is
belated. According to them, the Applicant never challenged
either his promotion or its regularization and cannot now seek
an ante-dated promotion merely to create eligibility for
further promotion. It is submitted that, if any cause of action
arose, it arose on 08.12.2014, when his promotion was
regularised w.e.f. 02.02.2010. The Respondents therefore
maintain that the impugned order dated 13.06.2019 is neither
illegal nor arbitrary.
13. The Respondents further rely upon Guideline 6.4.4 of the
Guidelines on Departmental Promotion Committees, which
provides that promotions made from a consolidated select list
have only prospective effect even where the vacancies relate
to earlier years. A copy of the Guidelines is annexed as
Annexure R-4 . On this basis, it is argued that although the
Senior Assistant post became vacant in March 2009, the
Applicant's promotion could take effect only from 02.02.2010,
the date recorded in the promotion/regularization orders. It is
therefore submitted that there is no basis for granting
promotion from March 2009.
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:56:55+05'30'

8 (OA No. 1280/2019)

14. With regard to promotion as Superintendent Grade-I, the
Respondents rely upon the applicable Recruitment Rules
( Annexure R-5 ), under which the post is to be filled by
promotion from Senior Assistants and Senior Scale
Stenographers having 10 years' regular service in the cadre,
with a further requirement of two years' service as Senior
Assistant for a Senior Scale Stenographer. The Respondents
state that no candidate was eligible in March 2016 when the
post fell vacant. They further refer to Punjab Government
instructions dated 08.08.2019, circulated by the Department
of Personnel on 29.11.2019, proposing reduction of qualifying
service from 10 to 7 years where no candidate is eligible, but
submit that the requisite amendment was still under process.
The said letter is annexed as Annexure R-6 ; hence,
according to the Respondents, the Applicant could not claim
promotion from March 2016 or February 2017.
15. The Respondents also state that the Applicant, being a
physically handicapped employee, was granted two years'
extension of service beyond the age of 60, with the first year
extending up to 31.12.2020, but was not entitled during the
extension to promotion, ACP, annual increment or pay
revision. The post of Superintendent Grade-I remained vacant
from 01.04.2016 after Shri Ashok Kumar Malhotra's
retirement. Various communications were exchanged
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:56:55+05'30'

9 (OA No. 1280/2019)

regarding filling the post, including the request dated
30.04.2019 ( Annexure R-7 ), the response dated 30.05.2019
stating that the post had been abolished ( Annexure R-8 ),
and subsequent correspondence dated 12.09.2019
( Annexure R-9 ), 05.12.2019 ( Annexure R-10 ) and
11.12.2019 ( Annexure R-11 ). The Respondents ultimately
maintain that under the Recruitment Rules no feeder-cadre
candidate was eligible for promotion and therefore the
Applicant's claim is liable to be rejected.
16. The applicant has also filed a rejoinder whereby while
reiterating his stand as in Original Application, he submitted
that the respondents’ stand regarding abolition/non-
availability of the post of Superintendent Grade-I is
contradictory, since after the retirement of Sh. Ashok Kumar
Malhotra on 31.03.2016 , Ms. Himanti Devi was posted against
the post and subsequently Sh. Parvesh Kumar was also
posted against it. The applicant contends that the post was a
promotional post and, if the Recruitment Rules were not
finalized, he ought to have been considered for promotion
under the existing notified Rules. The applicant further asserts
that the cause of action arose subsequently and that there
was no delay, particularly in view of the subsequent policies
dated 01.11.2018 and 08.08.2019. The policy dated
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:56:55+05'30'

10 (OA No. 1280/2019)

01.11.2018 is relied upon as Annexure A-19 , while the order
dated 14.05.2020 is relied upon as Annexure A-20 .
17. The applicant further submits that the respondents wrongly
relied upon the Guidelines dated 10.04.1989, particularly para
6.4.4, as those guidelines relate to posts filled through
selection, whereas the post in question was to be filled by
promotion through the non-selection method. Since the post
became available in March 2009 and the applicant was
promoted as Superintendent Grade-II on 02.02.2010, he
submits that under the existing notified Rules he became
eligible for further promotion after completing the prescribed
service. The applicant disputes reliance upon the proposed
Recruitment Rules requiring 10 years’ service, contending that
these Rules were never notified and therefore could not
supersede the existing notified Rules.
18. It is further contended that the Punjab Government
notification dated 08.08.2019 was applicable to the UT
Administration under the earlier instructions dated
13.01.1992 and was also adopted by the respondents.
Consequently, the applicant claims that he became eligible for
promotion as Superintendent Grade-I at least from
08.08.2019. The applicant also disputes the respondents’
attempt to fill the post by deputation, pointing out that the
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:56:55+05'30'

11 (OA No. 1280/2019)

post was primarily required to be filled by promotion and that,
by 30.04.2019 and certainly by 11.09.2019, the applicant had
become eligible. He further asserts that the competent
authority for considering his promotion was respondent No.1
and that respondent No.2 could not have rejected his claim.
19. The applicant reiterated that the proposed Recruitment Rules
prescribing 10 years’ service had not been notified and that,
under the existing notified Rules, he had become eligible
earlier. He alleges that the respondents failed to specifically
answer several grounds raised in the OA and therefore those
grounds stand effectively unrebutted. The applicant also
emphasizes his status as a physically handicapped employee
and claims that a valuable right to consideration for
promotion had accrued in his favour. On these grounds,
including the alleged contradictory stand of the respondents
regarding the availability and filling of the post, the applicant
seeks allowance of the OA as prayed for .
20. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have
carefully gone through the pleadings on record.
21. The learned counsel for the applicant argued as follows:-
(i ) Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant, being
the eligible and senior-most Senior Assistant, was entitled to
consideration for promotion as Superintendent Grade-I against the
post lying vacant since April, 2016. It was argued that, on his
promotion as Senior Assistant w.e.f. March, 2009, he became
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:56:55+05'30'

12 (OA No. 1280/2019)

eligible for promotion as Superintendent Grade-I w.e.f. March, 2016,
or alternatively, if promotion is reckoned from February, 2010,
w.e.f. February, 2017.

(ii) Learned counsel argued that the right of an eligible employee to be
considered for promotion is a fundamental right under Article 16(1)
of the Constitution and cannot be arbitrarily delayed or denied.
Reliance was placed on the judgments in Ajit Singh v. State of
Punjab and Delhi Jal Board v. Mahinder Singh , wherein the
right to consideration for promotion was recognised.

(iii) Learned counsel further argued that the applicant should not suffer
for administrative delay in convening the DPC. Reliance was placed
on K.C. Chauhan v. Sujeet S. Priyadarshi, decided on
07.03.2012 (Annexure A-12), and P.N. Premachandran v.
State of Kerala & Ors., Civil Appeal No.4100/1998, decided
on 06.11.2003 , wherein the consequences of unexplained
administrative delay in holding DPCs were considered and relief was
granted to employees affected by such delay.

(iv) Learned counsel argued that the respondents acted contrary to the
instructions requiring timely holding of DPCs, despite the
Government treating such delay as a serious lapse. The delayed
promotion has caused continuing prejudice to the applicant by
affecting his seniority, subsequent promotions, monetary benefits
and ultimately his pensionary benefits. The applicant, it was argued,
cannot be made to suffer for the respondents' administrative lapse.
(v) Learned counsel also argued that the impugned order is vitiated as it
was passed by an incompetent authority, namely the Principal
Secretary, Technical Education, whereas respondent No.2 was the
competent authority. It was further argued that reliance on the DPC
guidelines regarding prospective effect of promotions is
misconceived, as the applicant had become eligible for promotion as
Senior Assistant in 1996 and, when a post became available in
March, 2009, the respondents failed to hold the requisite DPC in
time, resulting in unwarranted delay and consequential loss to the
applicant.
22. The learned counsel for the Respondents argued as follows:-
(i) It is contended that although the post of Senior Assistant became
vacant on 04.03.2009, the Applicant was actually promoted only on
02.02.2010, and his promotion was subsequently regularised w.e.f.
the same date vide order dated 08.12.2014 (Annexure R-2) . Since
the Applicant never challenged his promotion or its date earlier, the
Respondents argue that he cannot now claim ante-dated promotion
from March 2009. They further rely upon Guideline 6.4.4
( Annexure R-4) to contend that promotion has only prospective
effect even against earlier vacancies.
(ii) The Respondents rely upon the Recruitment Rules ( Annexure R-5 ),
under which Superintendent Grade-I is to be filled by promotion
from Senior Assistants/Senior Scale Stenographers having 10 years’
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:56:55+05'30'

13 (OA No. 1280/2019)

regular service. According to the Respondents, the Applicant did not
fulfil the prescribed qualifying service in March 2016 or February
2017, and therefore could not claim promotion from either date.
They further contend that the proposed reduction of qualifying
service from 10 years to 7 years under the instructions dated
08.08.2019, circulated on 29.11.2019 (Annexure R-6) , had not yet
been incorporated into the applicable Recruitment
(iii) The Respondents admit that the post of Superintendent Grade-I
remained vacant from 01.04.2016 after the retirement of Shri Ashok
Kumar Malhotra. However, they state that subsequent
correspondence regarding filling up the post ultimately revealed that
the post had been abolished pursuant to the Government of India,
Ministry of Finance instructions dated 12.04.2017. The Respondents
rely upon the correspondence dated 30.04.2019 (Annexure R-7) ,
30.05.2019 (Annexure R-8) and 12.09.2019 (Annexure R-9) , as
well as subsequent letters dated 05.12.2019 (Annexure R-10) and
11.12.2019 (Annexure R-11)
(iv) It is further contended that the judgments relied upon by the
Applicant have no application to the facts of the present case, and
that the preliminary objections and reply to the facts may be read as
part of the response to those sub-paras. They specifically deny that
the Applicant was eligible for promotion as Superintendent Grade-I,
that his consideration for promotion was arbitrarily denied, or that
there was any delay, administrative lapse, irregularity or violation of
the applicable instructions requiring a DPC. Their stand is that the
Respondents’ actions are legal and valid, no cause of action has
arisen in favour of the Applicant, and the O.A. deserves dismissal.
(v) To buttress their arguments further, the respondents also relied on
the judgement passed by the Apex Court in Union of India & Anr.
Vs. Manpreet Singh Poonam etc., 2022 Liv e Law 9SC) 254
wherein it has been held that promotion to a post should only be
granted from the date on which vacancy has arisen.

23. We have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced
by the learned counsels for the parties, examined the
pleadings on record, and thoughtfully analyzed the judicial
precedents cited by both sides. The core controversy
revolves around two primary claims: first, whether the
applicant is entitled to ante-dated promotion as Senior
Assistant w.e.f. March 2009; and second, whether he is
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:56:55+05'30'

14 (OA No. 1280/2019)

entitled to promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-I
from the date the vacancy arose or subsequently upon
completing the requisite service.
24. Regarding the first claim for ante-dated promotion as Senior
Assistant, the applicant seeks to push back his promotion
date from 02.02.2010 to March 2009. However, the
respondents rightly point out that the applicant accepted his
promotion and regularization w.e.f. 02.02.2010 vide order
dated 08.12.2014 without any immediate challenge. On this
aspect, the respondents' reliance on the landmark judgment
of the Apex Court in Union of India & Anr. v. Manpreet
Singh Poonam etc . is well-founded, wherein the Supreme
Court reiterated the established principle that promotion to a
post should normally be granted from the actual date of
promotion and not retrospectively from the date when the
vacancy arose, unless specific service rules permit otherwise.
Furthermore, Guideline 6.4.4 of the DPC Guidelines restricts
promotions from a select panel to have prospective effect.
Consequently, the applicant's claim for ante-dating his
Senior Assistant promotion to March 2009 is legally
untenable and stands rejected.
25. On the other hand, the claim for promotion to
Superintendent Grade-I stands on a fundamentally different
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:56:55+05'30'

15 (OA No. 1280/2019)

pedestal. The applicant relies heavily on the proposition that
the right to be considered for promotion is an intrinsic facet
of the fundamental right to equality under Article 16(1) of
the Constitution of India, a principle firmly rooted in the
Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Ajit
Singh v. State of Punjab , wherein it was authoritatively
held that the right to be considered for promotion is not
merely a statutory right, but a fundamental right. Moreover,
as held in P.N. Premachandran v. State of Kerala & Ors.,
an employee cannot be made to suffer or be prejudiced in
their career progression due to unexplained administrative
delays in convening DPCs or finalizing rules. In the present
case, the applicant was the senior-most eligible Senior
Assistant, possessed an unblemished record, and was even
entrusted with the functional look-after charge of
Superintendent Grade-I since October 2018. The
respondents' defense that the post stood abolished is flimsy,
contradictory to their own administrative postings, and
unsupported by any formal statutory notification of abolition.
Denying the applicant fair consideration for promotion on
technical pleas or delayed rule amendments, right on the
threshold of his superannuation, violates settled canons of
service jurisprudence.
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:56:55+05'30'

16 (OA No. 1280/2019)

26. In view of the foregoing discussions and guided by the judicial
principles laid down in Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab and
P.N. Premachandran , the Original Application is partly
allowed. The impugned Order dated 13.06.2019, to the extent
it arbitrarily denies consideration and misinterprets the
eligibility and service rights of the applicant, is hereby quashed
and set aside. The respondents are directed to treat the
applicant as fully eligible for promotion to the post of
Superintendent Grade-I upon completing the requisite
qualifying service under the applicable rules and to convene a
review DPC to consider his case for promotion from the date
his eligibility crystallized. If found fit by the DPC, the applicant
shall be granted notional promotion to the post of
Superintendent Grade-I with all consequential benefits,
including the proper revision of his pensionary and retiral
benefits keeping in view that he retired during the pendency of
these proceedings. The above 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.
27. There shall be no order as to costs.

(RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI) (RAMESH SINGH THAKUR)
Member (A) Member (J)


ND*
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:56:55+05'30'