Sarbjit Kumar Singh vs M/o Water Resources

1
Item No. 50 O.A. No. 2198/2020
Court No. III

Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench,
New Delhi

O.A. No . 2198/2020 & M.A. No. 1504/2025

Reserved on:- 07.10.2026
Pronounced on:- 22.10.2026


Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon’ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)

1. Sarbjit Kuamr Singh, S/o Sh. J.P.Singh,
Age- 35 years, Deputy Director,
Central Water Commission,
R/o Vill+Po Rukundipur, PS Dhuraundha, Dist Siwan, Bihar-841238

2. Nagaraj V,
S/o Sh. R. Vaiyapuri, .
Age- 38 years, Deputy Director,
Central Water Commission,
R/o Thoppanayakkanpatti (P.O.), Vaiyampatti (VIA).
Manapparai (T.K.), Tricky (T.N.)-621315
...Applicants

(By Advocate: Mr. Ankur Chhibber with Mr. Nikunj Arora)

Versus

1. The Secretary,
Department of Water Resources,
River Development & Ganga Rejuvenation,
Ministry of Jal Shakti,
Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg,
New Delhi – 110001.

2. The Secretary,
Central Water Commission,
Sewa Bhawan,
R. K. Puram,
New Delhi – 110066.

3. The Secretary,
Railway Board,
256-A, Rail Bhawan,
Raisina Road, Rajpath Area,
Central Secretariat, New Delhi – 110001.

4. The Secretary,
ANKIT SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:30:32+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLANI

2
Item No. 50 O.A. No. 2198/2020
Court No. III

Department of Personnel & Training,
North Block, Central Secretariat,
New Delhi – 110001.

…Respondents

(By Advocate: Mr. Manish Kumar)


ANKIT SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:30:32+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLANI

3
Item No. 50 O.A. No. 2198/2020
Court No. III

ORDER
Hon’ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)

By way of the present O.A. the applicant has prayed for the following
reliefs:-
“(i) To grant promotion to the applicants from Junior Time Scale (JTs) in
th
7 CPC with retrospective effect from 10.05.2016 that is the date on
which the juniors to the applicants of ESE-2010 batch got promoted
including pay and arrears.
(ii) To restore original seniority of applicants as on 01.01.2016 as fixed
by Central Water Commission vide its corrigendum No. 15/01/2015-
Estt.III/3089 dated 14.10.2016.
(iii) To consider the service conditions (experience, eligibility & residency
of applicants at par with their juniors of ESE- in all future promotions,
external employments and any other likely provisions ESE-2010 in all
future promotions, external employments and to extend all other likely
benefits.”
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicants
submitted that the applicants, who were selected through the Reserve List of
ESE-2010 and subsequently appointed to the Central Water Engineering
Services in August and September 2015, were wrongly denied promotion to
the Senior Time Scale (STS) along with their immediate juniors, who were
promoted on 10.05.2016.
2.1. Learned counsel contended that, upon representations by the
applicants, the respondents themselves corrected their seniority in the Junior
Time Scale vide corrigendum dated 14.10.2016, placing them above their
respective juniors; however, despite repeated representations and the
applicants’ subsequent clearance of probation, they were denied
retrospective promotion and were promoted only on 29.06.2018 along with
officers of the ESE-2012 and ESE-2013 batches.
ANKIT SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:30:32+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLANI

4
Item No. 50 O.A. No. 2198/2020
Court No. III

2.2. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the delay in
applicant’s appointment and clearance of probation was attributable to the
respondents’ administrative actions and that they cannot be penalised for the
same by denying them their rightful seniority and consequential benefits.
Aggrieved by the rejection of their representations and their placement
below their juniors in the final seniority list of STS officers as on
01.01.2019, the applicants have filed the present OA seeking restoration of
their rightful seniority and notional promotion to STS with effect from
10.05.2016, along with consequential benefits.
2.3. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the respondents'
failure to timely operate the Reserve List and issue offers of appointment
against ESE-2010 vacancies resulted in an unjustified delay in the
applicants' appointment and subsequent promotion. It was argued that the
applicants cannot be penalised for administrative delays attributable to the
respondents, particularly when their seniority was subsequently corrected
and their immediate juniors had already been promoted to STS on
10.05.2016.
2.4. Relying upon the judgment in Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. v.
Rakesh Beniwal & Ors. , W.P. (C) No. 7423/2013, and the settled principle
that no person can take advantage of their own wrong, learned counsel
submits that the impugned action is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
2.5. Learned counsel further placed reliance upon the decision rendered by
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Jeewraj Singh Shekawat vs. UOI and
ors. (W.P.(C) No. 9018/2022. Relevant paras of which, read as under:
ANKIT SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:30:32+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLANI

5
Item No. 50 O.A. No. 2198/2020
Court No. III

“24. The controversy in the present case started when the petitioner was
sent on deputation abroad with effect from 21.06.2001. He was released
by his borrowing organisation only on 01.05.2007. In the meantime, his
batchmates were promoted to the rank of Assistant Commandant with
effect from 17.08.2004. The petitioner could not be promoted as he could
not undergo SICC SL. No. 65 along with his batchmates having not been
relieved by his borrowing department.
25. The respondent acted as a model employer and protected the chance
of the petitioner at the seniority for promotion to the rank of Assistant
Commandant, vide Orders dated 15.10.2007 and 12.11.2007. On his
repatriation to his parent organisation, the petitioner cleared the
promotional course SICC SL.No. 79, and vide Signal dated 23.10.2009,
was promoted to the rank of Assistant Commandant. The seniority of the
petitioner was re-fixed above his immediate junior- Shri Ajay Kumar vide
Order dated 22.09.2011.
26. For the rank of Deputy Commandant also, though Shri Ajay Kumar
had already been promoted to the post of Deputy Commandant in the year
2011 itself, when the petitioner was finally promoted to the said rank vide
Signal dated 21.08.2012, vide Order dated 14.08.2013, his seniority was
reassigned by placing him above his immediate junior- Shri Ajay Kumar.
27. From the above, it would be evident that the respondents themselves
had recognised that it was not due to the fault of the petitioner that the
petitioner could not earlier be promoted to the rank of Assistant
Commandant and later to the rank of Deputy Commandant along with his
batchmates. It was due to circumstances beyond his control, that is, for
him not being relieved by his borrowing department, that he could not
obtain these ranks along with his batchmates.
28. Unfortunately, the respondents for the rank of 2-I/C, however, have
not adopted a similar benevolent attitude towards the petitioner. They
have acted strictly in accordance with the Rules, which require 10 years
Group 'A' service and the residency period of 5 years, for depriving the
said rank to the petitioner along with his batchmates. The petitioner could
not complete the above said eligibility period along with his batchmates
only for the reasons which have already been recognised by the
respondents to be beyond his control and for which the respondents
themselves have given the benefit of retrospective seniority to the
petitioner while promoting him to the rank of Assistant Commandant and
the Deputy Commandant. In our view, therefore, the denial of
retrospective seniority to the petitioner in the rank of 2-I/C along with his
batchmates and above his immediate junior in the said rank, cannot be
sustained.
29. Similar is our opinion on the denial of NFFU to the petitioner along
with his batchmates.
30. In support of our above conclusion, we place reliance on the
Judgment of our Court in Jay Pratap Singh v. Union of India & Ors. ,
2015 SCC OnLine Del 7276, wherein, this Court was confronted with a
situation where the petitioner therein was not found eligible to be kept in
ANKIT SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:30:32+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLANI

6
Item No. 50 O.A. No. 2198/2020
Court No. III

the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Inspector as he had
not rendered 2 years service in a duty battalion and resultantly his juniors
were promoted to the said post. This Court, placing reliance on the
earlier Judgment in Ashok Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. , 2009 SCC
OnLine Del 3407, held as under:-
"11. Relevant would it be to note that way back on October 27, 2009,
deciding a. bunch of writ petitions; lead matter being
W.P.(C)No.21900/2005, Ashok Kumar Vs. Union of India & Drs., a
Division Bench of this court held that where the department is at fault in
not letting a person complete two years duty in a duty battalion, non-
fulfillment of the eligibility condition for promotion requiring two years
service in a duty battalion cannot be held against the person concerned.
xxxxx
25. Suffice it to state that as already noted by us in the order dated March
07, 2011 as well as in the decision in Ashok Kumar 's case (supra) the
petitioner had no option but to serve wherever he was required to be
posted.
Moreover, force personnel have no say in the matter of posting and
therefore, it is the department who is at fault in not letting a person
complete two years duty in a duty battalion, despite the same being a pre-
condition of mandatory field service for grant of promotion. Non-
fulfillment of the eligibility condition for promotion requiring two years
service in a duty battalion cannot be held against a person concerned as
the same is the sole prerogative of the department. As regards the power
of relaxation to be exercised by the Ministry of Home Affairs, as per the
letter dated July 04, 2012, the perusal of the said letter would reveal that
services rendered in NSG/SPGINDRF would be treated as service
rendered in a field unit for the purpose of promotion. In the instant case,
the petitioner was posted on deputation with the SPG at the time when the
batch-mates and persons junior to the petitioner earned promotion as
Assistant Commandant by virtue of the order dated November 03, 2010.
Therefore, the respondents cannot deny the benefit of back dated
promotion to the petitioner on the ground that the same was given to him
only upon completion of two years service in duty battalion. Vide
impugned order dated June 11,2013, it is observed that in light of the
directions given by this Court that the petitioner, if promoted as Assistant
Commander, shall be entitled to all consequential benefits, except actual
wages and for this very reason he would not be entitled to refixation of
pay at par with his juniors from a retrospective date.
26. The same reveals a total non-application of mind in as much as the
import of the order dated March 07, 2011 in denying actual wages to the
petitioner was on the principle of 'no work no pay' and the same could not
have been treated by the respondents as a ground to reject the notional
pay fixation of the petitioner. It is not a case where the petitioner has
claimed back wages or arrears of pay, in which case the stand taken by
the respondents may have been justified. As a natural consequence of
being considered and subsequently being found fit for promotion, the
ANKIT SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:30:32+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLANI

7
Item No. 50 O.A. No. 2198/2020
Court No. III

petitioner would undoubtedly be entitled for promotion form the date on
which his juniors were promoted, i.e. from November 03, 2010 as well as
notional fixation of pay in the rank of Assistant Commandant from the
said date."
31. The above Judgment was followed by this Court in Dharam Narayan
Borana v. Union of India & Ors. , 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6406, by
observing as under:-
"18. The Court finds that the Respondents were not justified in their
interpretation of the judgment dated 7th March 2011 of this Court. In that
judgment, it was made clear that the Petitioner would be entitled "to all
consequential benefits of his seniority as Inspector." This means that after
having fixed seniority of the Petitioner as Inspector on par with his
juniors, the Respondents had to, on the same logic, consider his
promotion as AC from the very date that his juniors were so promoted. In
other words, having accepted the judgment of this Court dated 7th March
2011, and having implemented it by restoring the Petitioner's seniority as
Inspector from the date his juniors were promoted, the Respondents were
required to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion as AC on
that basis and if found fit, to notionally fix his seniority as AC from the
same date when his juniors were promoted as AC. Otherwise at every
stage the Petitioner would be lagging behind unfairly and his juniors
would be stealing a march on him despite his having succeeded before
this Court by way of the judgment dated 7th March 2011. That certainly
was not the consequence envisaged by this Court. It is for this reason that
this Court made it clear that the Petitioner would be entitled to "all
consequential benefits of his seniority as Inspector."
32. In its Order dated 25.09.2019 in W.P.(C) 9588/2019 titled Sudhindra
Kumar Singh v. Union of India & Ors. , this Court was again confronted
with a factual position where the petitioner therein had not been
promoted to the rank of 2-I/C, having been declared unfit on account of
DGs displeasure. Pursuant to an order passed by the High Court of
Kerala, the petitioner was considered for the said post and maintained his
seniority above his immediate junior. However, in the meantime, his
immediate junior had been promoted to the rank of Commandant. The
petitioner therein was denied this promotion with a retrospective effect on
the ground that he had not completed the 2 years residency service in the
rank of 2-I/C. MHA also had refused to exercise its power of relaxation,
as is the case in the present petition as well. This Court, however, held
that as the initial promotion to the post of 2-I/C had been denied to the
petitioner therein on account of a mistake committed by the respondent,
the mistake ought to have been corrected even for the other DPCs where
the petitioner ought to have been considered for promotion. We may quote
from the Judgment as under:-
"16. It is, therefore, not correct for the MHA to take the stand that there
was no Court direction for further promotion. It is obvious that once the
Petitioner has been directed to be promoted to 2-IC "untrammelled by the
DG's displeasure" and "to issue revised orders granting promotion to the
Petitioner with effect from the date of promotion of his irnmediate junior"
ANKIT SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:30:32+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLANI

8
Item No. 50 O.A. No. 2198/2020
Court No. III

such direction would include not only promotion to the rank of 2-IC but
further promotions as well. There was no need to repeatedly go to the
Court for each promotion.
17. Once it is acknowledged that it is on account of the mistake committed
by the Respondents, in treating the DG's displeasure as a bar to consider
the Petitioner's case for promotion at the relevant time, such mistake
ought to be corrected by the Respondents with reference to such DPCs
where the Petitioner ought to have been considered for promotion. It is
unfortunate that the Petitioner has had to file the present writ petition
again been forced to litigate to get the full benefit of the above judgment
of the Kerala High Court in his favour."
33. Recently, this Court in Rakesh Kumar (supra) (wherein one of us,
namely, Justice Shalinder Kaur, was a part of the Bench), again on being
confronted with similar facts, held that once the petitioner therein had
been placed in his rightful position in the seniority list of Assistant Sub-
Inspector, the respondent by taking his actual date of joining service
could not deny his promotion.
34. In view of the above facts and the position in law, we allow this
petition by directing the respondents to grant retrospective seniority to the
petitioner to the post of 2-I/C from the date on which his immediate junior
Shri Ajay Kumar was granted such promotion, and to place him
immediately above Shri Ajay Kumar in the seniority list in the rank of 2-
I/C. The petitioner, however, while being granted all consequential
benefits, including pay fixation, etc., will not be given the benefit of
enhanced wages for the period he did not actually serve in the rank of 2-
I/C. As far as NFFU is concerned, the petitioner shall again be granted
the said benefit from 01.04.2017, that is, the date his immediate junior,
that is, Shri Ajay Kumar has been granted the same.
35. With the above directions, the petition is disposed of. ”


3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the
OA and submitted that the applicants were appointed from the Reserve List
of ESE-2010 and not from the original select list. It was contended that the
delay in their appointment was not attributable to the respondents, as the
offers of appointment were issued after completion of the prescribed
formalities, and the applicants themselves sought extensions of joining time.

3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that completion of the mandatory
two-year probation period was a prerequisite for promotion from Junior
ANKIT SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:30:32+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLANI

9
Item No. 50 O.A. No. 2198/2020
Court No. III

Time Scale (JTS) to Senior Time Scale (STS), which the applicants had not
fulfilled when their juniors were promoted in 2016 and 2017. Accordingly,
they were promoted on 29.06.2018 upon fulfilling the eligibility conditions,
and their seniority in STS was fixed in accordance with the DoPT
instructions dated 11.11.2010.
3.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicants' representations
were duly examined in consultation with the concerned Ministry and DoPT,
but their request for restoration of seniority was not acceded to, being
contrary to the applicable rules.

3.3. Denying any arbitrariness, discrimination or violation of Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution, learned counsel submitted that the applicants
have no vested right to retrospective promotion or relaxation of the
prescribed probation period and, therefore, the OA deserves to be dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that
candidates of ESE-2010 were allocated to various departments and
issued appointment letters during December 2011 to February 2012,
whereas the applicants received their offers only in May 2015. It was
contended that CWC, vide its letter dated 12.11.2018, had prima facie
found merit in the applicants’ representations, but their request was
rejected without assigning specific reasons. The learned counsel for the
applicants further contend that the DoPT O.M. dated 11.11.2010 relied
upon by the respondents is not applicable to their case and that their
representations ought to have been considered in light of the DoPT O.M.
ANKIT SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:30:32+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLANI

10
Item No. 50 O.A. No. 2198/2020
Court No. III

dated 10.06.2015 and the judgment in Govt. of NCT of Delhi v.
Rakesh Beniwal (supra).\
5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the
pleadings available on record.
6. ANALYSIS :
6.1. The controversy arising for consideration in the present O.A. is whether
the applicants, who were appointed to the Central Water Engineering
Services from the reserve list of ESE-2010 in August and September 2015,
respectively, are entitled to claim notional promotion to the Senior Time
Scale (STS) with effect from 10.05.2016, the date on which certain officers
of ESE-2010, stated to be junior to them, were promoted, together with
consequential benefits.
6.2. The applicants have contended that although they belonged to ESE-
2010, they were appointed considerably later than the candidates included in
the original select list. According to them, the delay in operating the reserve
list and issuing appointment offers resulted in their joining service only in
August and September 2015, thereby placing them at a disadvantage in
relation to their batchmates. They further submit that their seniority in JTS
was subsequently corrected by the respondents vide corrigendum dated
14.10.2016, placing them above their respective juniors, yet they were not
extended the benefit of promotion from the date on which such juniors were
promoted. The applicants were ultimately promoted to STS with effect from
29.06.2018, after completion of probation, and contend that their subsequent
ANKIT SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:30:32+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLANI

11
Item No. 50 O.A. No. 2198/2020
Court No. III

promotion does not adequately redress the prejudice allegedly caused by the
delay in their appointment.
6.3. The respondents have opposed the claim primarily on the ground that
the applicants were appointed from the reserve list and had not completed
the prescribed two-year probation period on 10.05.2016. It is their case that
the applicants became eligible for promotion only after fulfilling the
applicable conditions and were accordingly promoted on 29.06.2018. The
respondents have also submitted that the delay in appointment was not
attributable to them and that the applicants had themselves sought
extensions of joining time. They maintain the stand that the applicants’
representations were duly examined in consultation with the concerned
authorities and rejected in accordance with the applicable service rules and
instructions.
6.4. It is evident from the rival submissions that the issue is not confined
merely to the applicants’ position in the JTS seniority list. The correction of
seniority by the corrigendum dated 14.10.2016 is a relevant circumstance,
but seniority and eligibility for promotion are distinct matters. At the same
time, the fact that the applicants were appointed from the reserve list and
had not completed probation on the date claimed cannot, without examining
the circumstances leading to their appointment and the applicable rules, be
treated as conclusively determining the controversy. The material question
is whether the applicants’ delayed appointment and the consequent non-
completion of probation by the relevant date were attributable to
ANKIT SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:30:32+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLANI

12
Item No. 50 O.A. No. 2198/2020
Court No. III

circumstances beyond their control and, if so, what legal consequences may
follow under the governing rules and instructions.
6.5. In this regard, the applicants have relied upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Jeewraj Singh Shekhawat v. Union of
India & Ors. , (supra), wherein the Court considered the claim of an
employee who could not fulfil the prescribed qualifying service within the
relevant period owing to circumstances beyond his control. The Court
emphasised that where the department itself was responsible for the
circumstances preventing an employee from meeting a qualifying condition,
the resulting disadvantage in promotion and seniority could not be allowed
to operate mechanically against the employee. The judgment, therefore,
underscores the need to examine whether the shortfall in eligibility is
attributable to the employee or to circumstances for which the
administration bears responsibility.
6.6. The principle relied upon by the applicants is relevant to the issue raised
in the present O.A. However, the factual circumstances of Jeewraj Singh
Shekhawat (supra) arose in the context of deputation and the inability of the
petitioner to complete the prescribed service requirement in the relevant
circumstances. The applicability of that principle to the present case, which
concerns appointment from a reserve list and completion of probation, must
accordingly be assessed with reference to the governing service rules and
the facts established on record. The judgment cannot be construed as
dispensing, in every case, with a mandatory eligibility condition or as
conferring an automatic right to retrospective promotion merely because an
ANKIT SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:30:32+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLANI

13
Item No. 50 O.A. No. 2198/2020
Court No. III

employee belongs to the same examination batch as the officers already
promoted.
6.7. The applicants have also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi in Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. v. Rakesh Beniwal
& Ors. , (supra), and the DoPT O.M. dated 10.06.2015. Their contention is
that an employee should not be deprived of a service benefit on account of
an administrative delay for which the employee is not responsible. The
respondents, however, have relied upon the applicable probation
requirement and the DoPT instructions dated 11.11.2010. The precise
applicability and effect of these instructions, in the context of the applicants’
appointment from the reserve list and their claim for notional promotion,
require specific consideration. It is necessary to determine whether the
circumstances of the applicants’ case fall within the principle relied upon by
them and whether the relevant rules permit the consequential relief sought.
6.8. We also take note of the applicants’ reliance upon the communication
dated 12.11.2018, stated to indicate prima facie merit in their
representations, and the subsequent rejection of their claim communicated
on 08.08.2019. The communication expressing a prima facie view does not,
by itself, create an enforceable right to retrospective promotion.
Nevertheless, the applicants’ contention that the effect of the correction of
their JTS seniority, the circumstances surrounding their appointment and the
judgments and instructions relied upon by them were not adequately
considered calls for examination by the competent authority. The rejection
of their claim must address these material aspects and cannot rest merely
ANKIT SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:30:32+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLANI

14
Item No. 50 O.A. No. 2198/2020
Court No. III

upon a general reference to non-completion of probation without
considering the circumstances in which such non-completion occurred.
6.9. We are, therefore, of the view that the applicants’ claim requires a fresh
and reasoned examination by the competent authority. Such examination
must include the circumstances and timeline of operation of the reserve list
and issuance of appointment offers; the effect, if any, of the applicants’
requests for extension of joining time; the correction of their JTS seniority;
the applicable conditions governing probation and promotion to STS; and
the applicability of the DoPT O.M. dated 10.06.2015 and the principles laid
down in Jeewraj Singh Shekhawat (supra) and Rakesh Beniwal (supra).
The authority must specifically determine whether any delay attributable to
the administration resulted in the applicants being unable to fulfil the
relevant eligibility conditions alongside their immediate juniors, and
whether the governing rules permit the grant of notional promotion or any
other consequential service benefit.
6.10. In view of the above, we consider it appropriate to remit the matter to
the competent authority for fresh consideration rather than express a final
conclusion on the applicants’ entitlement to retrospective promotion in the
absence of a definitive determination of the aforesaid issues. The competent
authority shall consider the matter independently, in accordance with the
applicable rules and instructions, and pass a reasoned and speaking order
dealing with the material contentions raised by the applicants.

ANKIT SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:30:32+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLANI

15
Item No. 50 O.A. No. 2198/2020
Court No. III

7. CONCLUSION :
7.1. In view of the foregoing discussion, the O.A. is disposed of with a
direction to the competent authority to reconsider the applicants’
representations seeking notional promotion to STS with effect from
10.05.2016, in the light of the applicable service rules, the DoPT O.M. dated
10.06.2015 relied upon by the applicants, and the principles discussed
hereinabove.
7.2. The competent authority shall specifically examine the circumstances
surrounding the applicants’ appointment from the reserve list, the reasons
for the delay in issuance of appointment offers, the effect of the correction
of their JTS seniority, and the applicability of the prescribed probation
requirement to their claim for notional promotion. The competent authority
shall also consider the applicants’ reliance upon the judgments referred to
above and the respondents’ contention regarding extensions of joining time.
A reasoned and speaking order shall be passed within three months from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
7.3. It is clarified that this Tribunal has not expressed any final opinion on
the merits of the applicants’ claim for retrospective promotion or
consequential monetary benefits. The same shall be determined by the
competent authority in accordance with the applicable rules and instructions,
upon due consideration of the relevant facts and the principles discussed
hereinabove.
7.4. The O.A. stands disposed of in the above terms.
ANKIT SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:30:32+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLANI

16
Item No. 50 O.A. No. 2198/2020
Court No. III

7.5. Pending M.A.(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. There shall be no
order as to costs.
(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)

/as/
ANKIT SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:30:32+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLANI