BALDEVBHAI M AMIN vs All India Radio

1 OA No.187/2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD BENCH
(camp at Jodhpur)

Original Application No.187/2013

Pronounced on : 05.10.2026
Reserved on : 07.09.2026
CORAM

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS, MEMBER (J)
HON’BLE Dr. HUKUM SINGH MEENA, MEMBER (A)

Baldevbhai Muljibhai Amin S/o Shri Muljibhai Amin, Aged about 60
years, Residing at: Plot No.271/2, Sector-3 New, Near R.T.O, G-1Circle,
Gandhinagar-382006. Working as: Transmission Executive (TREX)
Commercial Broadcasting Service, ALL India Radio, Ahmedabad-09.
…..Applicant
By Advocate : Mr.Ravindra Parmar

Versus

1. Union of India through the Secretary, Information and Broadcasting
Shastri Bhavan, "A"Wing, New Delhi-110001.
2. Prasar Bharti, Broadcasting Corporation of India through its Chief
Executive Officer, PTI Building, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110 001.
3. The Director General, All India Radio, Prasar Bharti, Broadcasting
Corporation of India, Akashwani Bhawan, Parliament Street, New
Delhi-110001.
4. The Station Director Commercial Broadcasting Service Akashwani
Bhavan, Navrangpura Ahmedabad-380009.
...... Respondents
By Advocate: Ms. R.R. Patel


P ANUKUMA

2 OA No.187/2013
ORDER
Per Dr. Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)
The applicant being aggrieved by inaction of the respondents in
not conducting Departmental Promotional Committee meeting for
promotion of the applicant from the post of Transmission Executive
(TREX) to Programme Executive (PEx), the applicant has filed the
present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
and sought following reliefs:-
“(A). The Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to declare the action on the part of the
respondent authorities in not conducting the Departmental Promotion
Committee as per the instructions issued by the Department of Personnel and
Training and Chief Executive Officer, Prasar Bharati and thereby denying
legitimate promotion to the applicant to the post of Programme Executive is
illegal arbitrary unconstitutional and contrary to settled legal position and
against the principles of natural justice.
(B) Be pleased to direct the respondents to convene regular Departmental
Promotion Committee for the purpose of promotion to the post of
Programme Executive forthwith and award all consequential benefits from
the date the vacancies were available.
(C). Be pleased to allow this petition with costs and be pleased to quantify
the cost.
(D). Be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs as may be deemed just
and proper by the Hon'ble Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the
case.”
2. Brief facts of the case are as under :-
2.1 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant being
declared surplus was absorbed as Transmission Executive in the scale of
Rs.1400-2600 with effect from 30.09.1992, since then he was working
as Transmission Executive honestly, sincerely and to the best of his
ability. Further on the acceptance of recommendations of Sixth Central

P ANUKUMA

3 OA No.187/2013
Pay Commission's report, the pay of the applicant was revised in the PB-
II grade pay of Rs.4600/- and subsequently, he was given the benefits of
MACP in the grade pay of Rs.4800/-. He further submitted that had he
been given promotion to the post of Programme
Executive, his grade pay would have been fixed at Rs.5400/-. In order to
submit the proper representation, the applicant sought information under
Right to Information Act from the respondent authorities with respect of
number of employees, who were promoted to the post of Programme
Executives on reservation basis as well as against the physically
handicapped category.
2.2 In response to the above, the respondents supplying information
about the number of persons who were promoted against SC quota vide
communication dated 12.10.2007 and also informed that as per roster
point as well as reservation points, there is no quota for the physically
handicapped persons in Group B posts. Subsequently, the applicant
submitted a representation on 25.10.2007 stating the exact number of
physically handicapped candidates from general category, who have
been promoted to the post of Programme Executives from the post of
Transmission Executives. Thereafter, he submitted representations on
06.04.2005 to 30.09.2006 requesting to grant the benefit of first ACP on
completion of 12 years of service or alternatively to promote him from
the post of Transmission Executive to Programme Executive. Moreover,
the applicant is suffering 40% disability, therefore, which is entitled to
the benefit available to a physically handicapped person in addition to
the benefits available to Scheduled Caste category. When, he had not
received any response from the respondent authorities, he again made

P ANUKUMA

4 OA No.187/2013
representation on 14.12.2006 to the Director General, All India Radio
requesting him to consider his case for promotion to the post of
Programme Executive.
2.3 The respondent authorities also published and circulated the draft
seniority list of Transmission Executives on 08.01.2007 wherein it was
stated that there was no promotion quota under physical handicap quota.
Consequently, the applicant made representation on 31.01.2007
requesting competent authority to consider his case for promotion under
physical handicap category since he was the only candidate in that
category at the relevant point of time. In response to the above
representation, the respondent namely Deputy Director, Administration
vide his letter dated 22.05.2008 informed that the DPC was convened as
per law and consequently some 257 Transmission Executives were
granted promotion to the post of Programme Executives. Finally, the
respondents informed about the convening of the Departmental
Promotional Committee vide letter dated 08.10.2012 for regular
promotion to the grade of Programme Executive from its feeder cadre.
Since the applicant was languishing for promotion and his date of
superannuation was near, he made further representation on 29.01.2013
as his name appears at serial No.410 requesting his case for promotion
may be considered expeditiously. Subsequently, he was again made
representation on 05.03.2013 which also forwarded to the competent
authority vide communication dated 11.03.2013.
2.4 The applicant also referred promotion of employees from the
cadre of Stenographer & Librarian promoted, who were not forming by
any stretch of imagination as a feeder cadre for being promoted to the

P ANUKUMA

5 OA No.187/2013
post of Programme Executives, therefore, the respondents have violated
the basic rules of promotion. The applicant also approached the Liaisons
Officer SC/ST Cell, DDG (Engg), DG AIR, Akashvani Bhavan, New
Delhi for redressal of his grievances. It is also pertinent to note that the
applicant being a Government employee on deemed deputation to the
Prasar Bharati and is therefore entitled to all government benefits, which
had also been amply clarified vide circular dated 16.03.2011 of the
organisation.
2.5 The applicant also referred the basic rule of promotion as he had
spent more than 22 years of service as Transmission Executive, whereas
the minimum length of service for promotion from Transmission
Executive to Programme Executive required is 8 years and from
Programme Executive to the post of Assistant Station Director the length
of service required is five years and five years as Assistant Station
Director for promotion to the post of Station Director. Therefore, on the
basis of the above fact, it is evident that had the DPCs met timely and
regularly, the applicant would have been promoted to the post of
Programme Executive. He also referred the case of DG AIR Shri L. D.
Mandloi, wherein he had been promoted to the lower post to DG. He
further supported his arguments by stating that the persons who were
recruited in the year 1994 had been promoted to the post of Programme
Executive whereas he had been appointed in the year 1992 still he was
languishing as Transmission Executive. Therefore, there is merit in his
application, hence, the same may be allowed on the following grounds.
2.6 The action on the part of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and
colourable exercise of power in rejecting the claim of the applicant

P ANUKUMA

6 OA No.187/2013
without assigning any reasons. Learned counsel for the applicant also
referred to the OMs of the DoPT issued from time to time particularly
OM dated 21.09.2006 wherein emphasis was given to conduct the DPC
on regular basis. He referred the Para 2 of the said OM, which reads as
under:-
"delay in filling the promotional vacancies adversely affects the functioning
of government, therefore, it is reiterated that the clarification/modification as
contained in the above mentioned OM dated 8-9-1998 may be given wide
circulation and strict compliance."
He also referred the para 4 of the OM dated 11.03.2011, which
states as under:-
“4. Non adherence to time frame of DPCs is a matter of serious concern to
the Government Hence all concerned cadre controlling authorities are once
again counselled to ensure strict adherence to the model calendar for the
DPCS as circulated vide this Department's OM dated 8-9-1998. Whenever
DPCs are yet to be held for the vacancies arising in the year 2011-2012 the
same maybe completed by 31-3-2011 and for future vacancy years the time
frame referred to in Para 2 above may be strictly complied with".
Similar position was also reiterated in the OM dated 06.08.2012,
wherein it is stated as follows:-
"4. These undesirable trends negate the very purpose of model calendar for
DPC's prescribed vide this Department's OM NO. 22011/9/1998-Estt (D)
dated September 8,1998 Delay in holding DPCs not only affect the
manpower planning in various Ministries/Departments but also impedes the
career progression across the board and is the main reason for litigation
before CAT and various High Court."

P ANUKUMA

7 OA No.187/2013
2.7 Therefore, from bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions laid down
by the Department of Personnel and Training reveals that the
respondents authorities, apart from not paying any heed to the
grievances sought to be ventilated by the applicant, have been clearly
flouting the aforesaid instructions issued by the Department of Personnel
and Training without any reason and rhyme. He also relied upon the
ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. O.Z.
Hussain vs. Union of India (AIR 1990 SC 311), CSIR vs. K.G.S.Bhatt
(AIR 1989 SC 1972) and also in Sh. Ragunath Prasad Singh vs.
Secretary, Ministry of Home affairs (AIR 1988 SC 103), wherein it has
been held that regular promotion not only gives a moral boost to the
employee concerned but is also in the interest of the administration. In
the instant case the fact cannot be ignored that the office of respondent
authorities is playing with the career of the applicant which cannot be
permitted to sustain in the eye of law.
2.8 He also referred the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union
of India and Anr. Vs Hemraj Singh Chauhan and ors AIR 2010 SC 1682
on the point of inaction on the part of the respondent wherein it has been
held that inaction on the part of the respondent authorities deprives the
applicant’s fundamental right of fair consideration in the matter of
promotion and, therefore, the respondent authorities are required to be
appropriately directed. Finally, he submitted that if he retires in the same
cadre of Transmission Executive without promotion he is going to get
pensionary benefit in the PB-II grade pay of Rs.4800/-, however, if he
get promotion to the post of Programme Executive, he would get
pensionary benefit on the basis of PB II grade pay of Rs.5400/-.

P ANUKUMA

8 OA No.187/2013
Therefore, it will not only affect him financially but would also affect
the status of the employee as he would retire as Group-C employee if he
is in the cadre of Transmission Executive otherwise he would retire as
Group-B/Gazetted Officer if he retired as a Programme Executive.
Therefore, under such circumstances, balance of convenience is in
favour of the applicant and hence his prayer should be considered and he
should be given promotion to the post of Programme Executive from
retrospective date.
3. E-converso, the respondents filed reply wherein they have denied
the averments made by the applicant in the OA and further submitted
that the present OA was filed purportedly aggrieved by the action on the
part of the respondent authority for not conducting timely DPC for
promotion to the post of Programme Executive and therein denying the
legitimate promotion due to the applicant. The applicant further sought
to direct the respondents to convene the regular DPC for the purpose of
promotion to the post of Programme Executive. Learned counsel for
the respondents further submitted that the promotion on the
recommendation of DPC on 31.07.2009 from the post of Production
Assistants to Programme Executives were given on ad hoc basis only
against the available vacancies in Direct Recruitment Quota. However,
no regular promotion to the post of Programme Executive could be
granted after 10.12.2008 on account of operation of stay issued by the
Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in SWP No.1448/2008.
Moreover, as per the statement of the applicant in the combined
seniority list of TREXs, the applicant was figuring at serial no.410,
therefore, 409 TREXs were senior to him to be promoted to the post of

P ANUKUMA

9 OA No.187/2013
Programme Executives. Additionally, the applicant has filed the
present OA at the fag end of his service and the applicant had already
retired on attaining the age of superannuation.
3.1 The applicant had not filed any rejoinder, therefore, the present
OA was disposed of on 23.11.2016 for non prosecution by this Tribunal.
However, the applicant filed MA No.444/2025 for restoration of OA
along with MA No.445 of 2025 for condonation of delay in filing the
restoration of application. The said MAs were allowed by this Hon’ble
Tribunal vide order dated 30.07.2026. The applicant has not chosen to
file rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents in the OA. She further
submitted that the employee may have a right to be considered for
promotion, but no vested right to be promoted. She also referred the
ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of
Government of West Bengal vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors, in Civil
Appeal decided on 27.11.2024 for conducting the DPC with reference
to the retired Government servant, however, in order to comply with the
ex parte order passed by this Tribunal on 28.05.2013 directing to hold
the DPC within four months, the said order was served upon the
respondents after the retirement of the applicant herein. Accordingly, a
DPC was convened and because the applicant had already retired, he
could not be considered for promotion. The respondents also assailed on
the point of limitation for seeking promotion to the post of Programme
Executive wherein the cause arose, according to the statement of the
applicant in the year way back 2006 and he has preferred the present OA
on 27.05.2013, which is delayed by more than 7 years. However, he had
not filed any application for condonation of delay rather he had

P ANUKUMA

10 OA No.187/2013
mentioned under the head ‘limitation’ that the petition is filed within the
period of limitation and is not barred by delay and laches. Therefore,
she prayed that the OA is not only barred by unexplained huge delay of
7 years, but is completely meritless and inasmuch as the applicant’s case
could not be considered for promotion as he was standing at serial
no.410 in the seniority list and moreover his case could not be
considered for promotion to the post of Programme Executive as he had
already been retired before the date of holding the subsequent DPC.
4. Both the parties have filed written submissions, which were taken
on record.
5. The applicant reiterated the averments made in the OA and
referred the DOPT’s OM dated 14.11.2014 that promotion and
promotional benefits can be allowed even after the retirement of the
government employees. In this regard, he referred para 1 to 4 of the
aforementioned OM, which states as follows:-
“1. The undersigned is directed to invite reference to the Department of
Personnel and Training Office Memorandum No. 22011/4/98-Estt(D) dated
October 12, 1998 regarding consideration of retired employees who were
within the zone of consideration in the relevant year(s) but are not actually in
service when the DPC is being held. The said OM provides as follows:-
There is no specific bar in the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated April
10, 1989 or any other related instructions of the Department of Personnel
and Training for consideration of retired employees, while preparing
year-wise panel(s), who were within the zone of consideration in the
relevant year(s). According to legal opinion also it would not be in order
if eligible employees, who were within the zone of consideration for the
relevant year(s) but are not actually in service when the DPC is being
held, are not considered while preparing yearwise zone of
consideration/panel and, consequently, their juniors are considered (in
their places), who would not have been in the zone of consideration if the
DPC(s) had been held in time. This is considered imperative to identify
the correct zone of consideration for relevant Year(s). Names of the

P ANUKUMA

11 OA No.187/2013
retired officials may also be included in the panel(s). Such retired
officials would, however, have no right for actual promotion. The DPC(s)
may, if need be, prepare extended panel(s) following the principles
prescribed in the Department of Personnel and Training Office
Memorandum No.22011/8/87-Estt. (D) dated April 9, 1996."
2. Appointment Committee of Cabinet has observed that DPCs often do not
consider such eligible officers who are retiring before the occurrence of the
vacancy in the panel year. These undesirable trends negate the very purpose
of the above said Office Memorandum No. 22011/4/98-Estt(D) dated
October 12, 1998 and it is also against the principle of natural justice.
3. All the Ministries/Departments are therefore advised to ensure strict
compliance of the instructions of the Department of Personnel & Training
issued vide this Department's OM No. 22011/4/98-Estt(D) dated October 12,
1998.
4. These instructions may please be brought out to the notice of all concerned
including attached and subordinate offices."
5.1 He also submitted the reason for delay in filing the OA for
conducting the DPC. The applicant reiterated that the interim order
passed by this Tribunal dated 28.05.2013, wherein it is stated that in the
circumstances and in the light of the records available before me, I am of
the view that there should be an interim order directing the respondents
to convene a DPC within four months from today, if such DPC has not
been convened for the past 8 and half months and in that even the case
of the applicant shall be considered for promotion by the DPC so
st
convened irrespective of the fat that he is retiring on 31 May, 2013. It is
made clear that AMR-the decision of the DPC and the consequent
implementation thereof shall be subject to the final decision of this OA.
Consequently, the DPC was convened in October-November, 2013, but
facts were not made aware to the applicant herein. He also referred some
cases wherein undisputedly it is proved that the DG AIR Prasar Bharti
had given promotion even after their retirement till 2024. Therefore, on

P ANUKUMA

12 OA No.187/2013
the basis of above, he requested that his case deserves merit and the
same may be allowed.
6. Per contra, the respondents also filed their written submission
wherein they have reiterated the averments made in the reply to the OA
and further submits that the regular DPC for promotion from the post of
Transgression Executive to Programme Executive could not held on
account of operation of stay issued by the Hon'ble High Court of J&K in
SWP No.1448/2009. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied
upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal (Diary
No.43488 of 2013) Government of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Dr. Amal
Satpathi & Ors. decided on 27.11.2024, wherein it is held in as under:-
“21. While we recognize respondent No.1's right to be considered for
promotion, which is a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the
Constitution of India, he does not hold an absolute right to the promotion
itself. The legal precedents discussed above establish that promotion only
becomes effective upon the assumption of duties on the promotional post and
not on the date of occurrence of the vacancy or the date of recommendation.
Considering that respondent No. 1 superannuated before his promotion was
effectuated, he is not entitled to retrospective financial benefits associated to
the promotional post of Chief Scientific Officer, as he did not serve in that
capacity.
22. As a result of the above discussion, the judgment dated 1 February, 2023
passed by the High Court of Calcutta and the judgment dated 26th June, 2019
passed by the Tribunal are unsustainable in the eyes of law and are hereby
reversed and set aside.”
7. Heard both the learned counsel in length and perused the
contextual guidelines and material available on record. It is undisputedly
admitted fact that the applicant was appointed as a Transmission
Executive in the year 1992. It is also evident that he had not been given
any promotion rather he was given benefit of ACP and MACP and after

P ANUKUMA

13 OA No.187/2013
attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service in the PB
grade pay of Rs.4600/-.
7.1 The main grievance of the applicant is that the respondent
authority had not conducted any regular DPC since 2008, therefore, he
could not get promotion from the post of Transmission Executive to
Programme Executive before his superannuation. Therefore, he prayed
in this OA that he may be considered for promotion on the post of
Programme Executive retrospectively, whereas the stand taken by the
respondents is that the applicant stand at serial no.410 in the seniority
list, therefore, the number of Transmission Executive, which are 409 in
number are waiting for promotion before the applicant.
7.2 It is seen that the respondents have not convened the DPC because
there was a stay from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in
SLP No.1448 of 2009 since 10.12.2008. This contention had not been
denied or countered by the applicant herein. Therefore, it is admitted fact
that due to operation of stay by the Hon'ble High Court of J&K, the
promotion from the post of Transmission Executive to Programme
Executive could not be made. Moreover, it is rather stated by the
applicant that in the seniority list, he stands at serial no.410. Therefore, it
is not clear that under what circumstances, the right of applicant to be
considered for promotion was jeopardised because of non-convening the
DPC in time. Moreover, the applicant retired on 31.05.2013, therefore,
as per settled law and the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Government of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi
& Ors. Civil Appeal (Diary No.43488 of 2013), promotion only
becomes effective upon the assumption of duties of higher

P ANUKUMA

14 OA No.187/2013
responsibilities on promotional post and not on the date of occurrence of
the vacancy or the date of recommendation.
7.3 In the present case also, the applicant be retired from the service
before the DPC was convened. We find force in the arguments of
learned counsel for the respondents that in compliance of the interim
order dated 28.05.2013, the respondents convened the DPC in
September/October, 2016 but the name of the applicant was not
considered as he had already superannuated at that point of time.
Therefore, promotion cannot be given retrospectively without
assumption of duties for the higher post and higher responsibility.
7.4 In view of the above, in our considered opinion, there is no merit
in the case of the applicant herein. Hence, The OA is dismissed. No
order as to costs.

(Dr. HUKUM SINGH MEENA) (RAMESHWAR VYAS)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Rss

P ANUKUMA