PREM CHAND DESHANTRI vs LABOUR

1 OA No.268/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR

Original Application No.268/2022

Pronounced on : 19.10.2026
Reserved on : 16.09.2026
CORAM

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

Prem Chand. Deshantri S/o late Mr. Ranglal Deshantri, aged 50 years,
Resident of B-31. Aashirwad Nagar, University Road, Near New
Keshav Nagar, Udaipur, Rajasthan-313001.
…..Applicant
By Advocate : Ms. Shaambahavi B. Mardia proxy counsel
for Mr. Shreyansh Mardia
Versus

1 Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Shram
Shakti Bhavan, New Delhi-110 066.

2. The Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident
Fund Organisation, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, 14. Bhikaji Kama
Place, New Delhi-110 066

3 The Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees
Provident Fund Organisation, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, 14,
Bhikaji Kama Place, New Delhi-110 066

4. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Rajasthan),
Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Nidhi Bhavan, Vidhyut
Marg, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302005

5. The Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Nidhi Bhavan, Vidhyut
Marg, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302005
...... Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. Yashpal Khileree
Radhe
Shyam
Songara
Digitally signed by Radhe Shyam
Songara
DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR ", OU=
PRIVATE SECRETARY, PostalCode=
342003, S=Rajasthan,
SERIALNUMBER=
b9df04312f53f00f720974ca155836fa54c
a986db2ee75670488a0e9babb99bf,
CN=Radhe Shyam Songara
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.11.02 10:45:06+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0

2 OA No.268/2022

ORDER
Per Dr. Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)
The applicant being aggrieved by the order of the respondent for
not regularizing his services to the post of Section Supervisor with effect
from 05.03.2009 i.e. the date of his promotion on ad hoc basis , the
applicant has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and sought following reliefs:-
“(i) The impugned order dated 13.04.2017 (Annexure A/1) to the extent of its
applicability to Rajasthan Region may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(ii) The Applicant's service on the position of Section Supervisor be
regularised from the date of his ad hoc promotion i.e. 05.03.2009 or in the
alternative from the date of vacancy.
(iii) The Applicant may kindly be held entitled for all consequential benefits
arising herein, of which he is legally entitled, along with interest.
(iv) Any other direction or order which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case in the interest of
justice may kindly be passed in favour of the Applicant.”
2. Brief facts of the case are as under :-
2.1 The applicant was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk
in the respondent department and posted at Udaipur on 29.07.1991. He
was subsequently promoted to Upper Division Clerk vide office order
dated 02.02.1994. The applicant averred that the service conditions of
the applicant were governed by the Staff and Conditions of Service
Regulations 1962. However, the Central Board, after exercising power
conferred by sub-section 7(a) and 5(d) of the Employees' Provident Fund
and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, framed the recruitment rules
Radhe
Shyam
Songara
Digitally signed by Radhe Shyam
Songara
DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR ", OU=
PRIVATE SECRETARY, PostalCode=
342003, S=Rajasthan,
SERIALNUMBER=
b9df04312f53f00f720974ca155836fa54c
a986db2ee75670488a0e9babb99bf,
CN=Radhe Shyam Songara
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.11.02 10:45:06+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0

3 OA No.268/2022
known as Employees' Provident Fund Organisation Section Supervisor
(Head Clerk) (Regional Office) Recruitment Rules 1992 for regulating
the method of recruitment and were given effect from 28.07.1992. As
per the provisions laid down in the aforestated rules, the post of Section
Supervisor is to be filled 66.67% by promotion on the basis of seniority-
cum-suitability and balance 33.33% by promotion through departmental
examination, failing which through direct recruitment.
2.2 It is apt to mention that the examination quota was introduced
with a view to offer an accelerated career progression to the
departmental employees having better merit in addition to the
departmental promotion seniority quota and direct recruitment.
Consequently, the department notified the Employees' Provident Fund
Departmental Examination Scheme 2002 for filling up of post of Section
Supervisor/Assistant in the regions as well as at the Headquarter.
Subsequently, the department notified order dated 13.08.2004 to conduct
departmental examination in various States including Rajasthan for the
post of Section Supervisor under 33.33% promotion through
departmental examination quota.
2.3 Thereafter, the respondent no.4 conducted said departmental
examination for the aforesaid post on 05.10.2004 and 06.10.2004.
However, the respondent no. 4 did not notify the number of vacancies
existing at the time of conducting of the examination. The applicant
participated in the examination for promotion to the post of Section
Supervisor. He was declared qualified and was listed at serial no.17 in
the list of qualified candidates. Meanwhile, the respondents gave
promotion to the post of Section Supervisor against the vacancies arising
Radhe
Shyam
Songara
Digitally signed by Radhe Shyam
Songara
DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR ", OU=
PRIVATE SECRETARY, PostalCode=
342003, S=Rajasthan,
SERIALNUMBER=
b9df04312f53f00f720974ca155836fa54c
a986db2ee75670488a0e9babb99bf,
CN=Radhe Shyam Songara
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.11.02 10:45:06+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0

4 OA No.268/2022
in Rajasthan from time to time, wherein it was stated that the promotion
was given to the 10 person from seniority quota and 3 person from
examination quota. Further, seven other persons were also promoted as a
Section Supervisor on ad hoc basis with effect from 05.03.2009.
2.4 The applicant has relied upon the information supplied by the
respondents to him under RTI filed by the applicant herein wherein it
was mentioned that a total of 47 vacancies were available in the
Rajasthan from 2004-2005 to 2017-2018 on the post of Section
Supervisor under the Departmental Examination quota. The respondent
also supplied the information that against the available vacancies from
2004-2005 to 2010-2011, 13 persons from the selection list had been
adjusted against the 13 vacancies. However, in spite of four vacancies
existing in 2011-12, only one vacancy was filled by the respondent
against the Departmental Examination quota. Meanwhile, some of the
applicant in the Gujarat region have filed OA number 263/2010 before
the CAT, Ahmedabad Bench challenging a promotion of official
working on ad hoc basis pursuant to the Departmental Examination held
in the State of Gujarat on 31.07.2007. The CAT Ahmedabad Bench
decided the case on 09.05.2012 wherein it was held that merit list
prepared on the basis of the result of Departmental Examination
conducted on 31.07.2007 cannot operate in perpetuity.
2.5 In pursuance to the order of the Ahmedabad CAT Bench, the
respondent, Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner (Zones)
issued a letter to all Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in charge of
Regional Offices on 13.04.2017, stating that all the Section Supervisor
promoted under Examination quota may be issued show-cause notice as
Radhe
Shyam
Songara
Digitally signed by Radhe Shyam
Songara
DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR ", OU=
PRIVATE SECRETARY, PostalCode=
342003, S=Rajasthan,
SERIALNUMBER=
b9df04312f53f00f720974ca155836fa54c
a986db2ee75670488a0e9babb99bf,
CN=Radhe Shyam Songara
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.11.02 10:45:06+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0

5 OA No.268/2022
to why they should not be reverted to their original cadre. It is
appropriate to mention that the facts with reference to the employee
promoted to the Section Supervisor on ad hoc basis in Rajasthan were
clearly distinguishable from the employee who had been promoted on ad
hoc basis through the Section Supervisor in Gujarat. Therefore, the
clarification was sought by respondent no.4 from respondent no.2 vide
its letter number 26.07.2013 regarding regulation in the cadre of Section
Supervisor under Examination quota, however, no response was
received by the respondent no.4.
2.6 However, in compliance of the order of the CAT Ahmedabad
Bench and subsequent directions issued by respondent no.3 to all the
Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner Zones and all the
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in charge of the regional offices
vide letter number 13.04.2017, the Regional Office a blanket order and
tried to make it applicable with retrospective effect without inviting
objection or giving personal hearing to the party affected in considering
the fact that no subsequent exam took place in Rajasthan like Gujarat,
where examinations were held in 2000, 2001 and 2007. Thereafter, the
respondent no.4 sent another reminder to respondent no.2, reiterating
therein that six officials including the applicant having been working on
ad-hoc basis for more than 8 years, therefore considering their
continuous service as Section Supervisors and their age profile, six
supernumerary posts may be created to accommodate them instead of
their reversion to the lower cadre. Meanwhile the applicant also sent a
representation on 01.06.2017 to the respondent no. 5 stating therein that
the order of the CAT Ahmedabad is not applicable to the applicant as the
Radhe
Shyam
Songara
Digitally signed by Radhe Shyam
Songara
DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR ", OU=
PRIVATE SECRETARY, PostalCode=
342003, S=Rajasthan,
SERIALNUMBER=
b9df04312f53f00f720974ca155836fa54c
a986db2ee75670488a0e9babb99bf,
CN=Radhe Shyam Songara
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.11.02 10:45:06+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0

6 OA No.268/2022
same pertains to the examination conducted in 2007 whereas no such
examination was held in Rajasthan in that year, since the applicant has
qualified the 2004 examination. However without considering the
representation of the applicant and the recommendation made by the
respondent no.4, the respondent department issued a letter dated
23.03.2018 directing therein that the limited departmental competitive
examination for promotion to the post of Section Supervisor would be
conducted as per the Employees Provident Fund Section Supervisor
Limited Departmental Competitive Examination Scheme 2017.
2.7 Being aggrieved from the aforesaid decision of the respondent the
applicant submitted a representation dated 02.04.2018 to the respondent
number 5 stating therein that he had been working on the post of Section
Supervisor on ad-hoc for since 9 years which is affecting his seniority,
and therefore, requested that he may be considered for regularization
with effect from 05.03.2009 i.e. the date of promotion on ad-hoc basis.
The representation of the applicant was forwarded by the respondent
no.4 to respondent no.5 on 03.04.2018. However the respondent without
considering the fact that applicant had been working diligently with
respondents for more than 27 years, the representation of the applicant
was not considered. Further the respondent regularized the service of the
applicant as a section supervisor with effect from 01.10.2020 under the
seniority cum suitability quota without giving any benefit of more than
11 years of service rendered by the applicant since 05.03.2009 when he
was promoted to the post of Section Supervisor. Therefore, the applicant
has filed this present OA on the following ground.
Radhe
Shyam
Songara
Digitally signed by Radhe Shyam
Songara
DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR ", OU=
PRIVATE SECRETARY, PostalCode=
342003, S=Rajasthan,
SERIALNUMBER=
b9df04312f53f00f720974ca155836fa54c
a986db2ee75670488a0e9babb99bf,
CN=Radhe Shyam Songara
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.11.02 10:45:06+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0

7 OA No.268/2022
2.8 The action of the respondents is unjust illegal discriminatory and
causing serious prejudice to the career of the applicant. Learned counsel
for the applicant further submitted that the content and facts filed by the
applicant of OA no.263/2010 before the CAT Ahmedabad Bench were
different, which sought direction to set aside the select list of 09.01.2009
and ad hoc promotion which was beyond the number of vacancies
available on the date of examination, which were decided on
13.03.2015. It is apt to mention that the select list prepared for
Rajasthan region on 10.03.2005 has neither been challenged nor was the
examination conducted in 2004. Therefore, impugned order of the
respondent dated 13.04.2017 for reverting the applicant and other
similarly situated employee from the Section Supervisor to UDC cannot
be made applicable retrospectively.
2.9 He also mentioned that the respondent had promoted one person
against the vacancy arising in year 2011-12. They could have promoted
other three candidates including the applicant herein against the three
vacancies available for the same year. He also contended that as per the
selection list after promotion of the Shri Jay Prakash Pandey, Shri
Narendra Singh and Shri Virendra Singh against the seniority quota, the
applicant and another one person were left from giving the regular
promotion on Section Supervisor. Therefore, the act of the respondents
is discriminatory and arbitrary in non-granting regular promotion to the
petitioner by holding back three vacancies for the year 2011-12.
2.10 He also supported his argument by stating that the respondent no.
4 had himself requested to the Headquarters for creation of
supernumerary post to safeguard the interest of the petitioner vide its
Radhe
Shyam
Songara
Digitally signed by Radhe Shyam
Songara
DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR ", OU=
PRIVATE SECRETARY, PostalCode=
342003, S=Rajasthan,
SERIALNUMBER=
b9df04312f53f00f720974ca155836fa54c
a986db2ee75670488a0e9babb99bf,
CN=Radhe Shyam Songara
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.11.02 10:45:06+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0

8 OA No.268/2022
letter dated 15.05.2017.Therefore, on the basis of the above fact, the
case of the applicant be considered and he may be allowed regular
promotion with effect from 05.03.2009 i.e. the date of giving him ad hoc
promotion on the basis of departmental examination competitive
examination.
3. E-converso, the respondents submitted their reply wherein they
have denied the averments made by the applicant and averred that the
applicant had challenged the order dated 13.04.2017 issued by the
Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner-II (HRM),
Employees' Provident Fund Organization, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,
New Delhi, which had been issued in compliance of the order passed by
the CAT Ahmedabad Bench, upheld by the Division Bench of Hon’ble
Gujarat High Court and by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is apt to mention
that the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to examine the matter and
dismiss the SLP on merit, as such the judgment rendered by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench is applicable to all region
of offices of the respondent Employees' Provident Fund Organization in
India. Therefore respondents had not committed any illegality, infirmity
in issuing the order dated 13.04.2017, averred the respondents.
3.1 Respondent further contended that the Section Supervisor
examination was a qualifying examination as per the provisions of the
rules accordingly the examination was conducted on the basis of
vacancy called from the regional office, against the available vacancy. It
was also submitted that the order dated 05.03.2009 for ad hoc promotion
was issued on the basis of recommendation of the DPC held on
05.03.2009, which was reviewed on 22.04.2014 in the meeting of
Radhe
Shyam
Songara
Digitally signed by Radhe Shyam
Songara
DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR ", OU=
PRIVATE SECRETARY, PostalCode=
342003, S=Rajasthan,
SERIALNUMBER=
b9df04312f53f00f720974ca155836fa54c
a986db2ee75670488a0e9babb99bf,
CN=Radhe Shyam Songara
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.11.02 10:45:06+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0

9 OA No.268/2022
Review DPC meeting. Accordingly an order dated 25.04.2014 was
issued regarding regular promotion to the post of section supervisor
under seniority quota and examination quota. Therefore, the
recommendation of the DPC dated 05.03.2009 ceased to exist after the
review DPC dated 22.04.2014 was conducted wherein the proceeding of
the DPC dated 16.01.2009 and 15.03.2009 were reviewed.
3.2 The averment of the applicant is not based on the available facts at
the relevant point of time that there were vacancies available and the
applicant was not regularly promoted to the post of Section Supervisor
as those vacancies were arisen after the review DPC on 22.04.2004
reviewed the available vacancy and the persons in place. He also
admitted that before the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Ahmedabad Bench on 09.05.2012, the select panel of the earlier
examination was used to fill the vacancy of the subsequent years, which
was challenged by some of the employees in the Gujarat region before
the CAT ,Ahmedabad Bench against the continuation of the selected
panel in perpetuating on the ground that having a large number of
candidates already in the select panel who had cleared the examination
in the earlier year, they would not get a chance to get selected in the
Section Supervisor examination. The CAT Ahmedabad Bench decided
the issue on 09.05.2012 and ordered to operate the impugned select list
up to the extent of reported vacancy and additional post created in
Section Supervisor vide Headquarter letter dated 26.12.2008. This
judgment was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, in
Special Civil Application No.2554/2016 which was dismissed on
11.07.2016 and upheld the judgment of CAT Ahmedabad Bench and
Radhe
Shyam
Songara
Digitally signed by Radhe Shyam
Songara
DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR ", OU=
PRIVATE SECRETARY, PostalCode=
342003, S=Rajasthan,
SERIALNUMBER=
b9df04312f53f00f720974ca155836fa54c
a986db2ee75670488a0e9babb99bf,
CN=Radhe Shyam Songara
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.11.02 10:45:06+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0

10 OA No.268/2022
subsequently the same was also upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
on 06.03.2017 in SLP (Civil) CC No.4928-4930 of 2017 and 4579 of
2017.
3.3 As the department had exhausted all the legal course remedy
available at relevant point of time, therefore, respondent had not left any
choice but to implement the order dated 13.03.2015 passed by Hon'ble
Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad. In compliance of the said
instructions, the official namely Shri Dinesh Sharma and Shri Jai
Prakash Pandya, who were promoted under examination quota against
the vacancy of the year 2010-11 and 2011-12 had been reverted to the
post of SSA. Moreover, the applicant had also been promoted to the post
of Section Supervisor under seniority quota on regular basis vide order
dated 28.12.2020.
3.4 The averment of the applicant is contrary to the judicial
pronouncement that the order of the CAT Ahmedabad Bench is not
applicable to the employee working in the Rajasthan region. Since it has
been upheld by the Apex Court on merit vide their judgment dated
06.03.2007, it is applicable to the entire country encompassing the same
set of employees. Accordingly, in compliance of the direction and
judicial pronouncement by Hon’ble Apex Court, a direction was given
by the respondent no.3 vide letter number 13.04.2017 for restricting the
promotion of the employee on the basis of departmental competitive
examination to the extent of available vacancy at the time of notification
of the examination. Further, the applicant could not be accommodated
upto the year of 2008-09 for promotion to the post of Section Supervisor
Radhe
Shyam
Songara
Digitally signed by Radhe Shyam
Songara
DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR ", OU=
PRIVATE SECRETARY, PostalCode=
342003, S=Rajasthan,
SERIALNUMBER=
b9df04312f53f00f720974ca155836fa54c
a986db2ee75670488a0e9babb99bf,
CN=Radhe Shyam Songara
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.11.02 10:45:06+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0

11 OA No.268/2022
under Limited Departmental Examination quota, therefore, he could not
be given regular promotion from retrospectively.
3.5 Learned counsel for the respondents referred the case of officials
namely Shri Dinesh Sharma and Shri Jai Prakash Pandya, who were
promoted under examination quota against the vacancy of the year 2010-
11 and 2011-12 had been reverted back to the post of SSA vide order of
the department dated 28.12.2020. It is also the fact that applicant was
promoted on ad hoc basis and as such he could not be accommodated for
promotion to the post of Section Supervisor under examination quota
due to non-availability of vacancy upto 2008-09, and as per the decision
of the CAT Ahmedabad Bench, the said select panel cannot be operated
for subsequent vacancies. However, the applicant has been promoted to
the Section Supervisor on regular basis under seniority quota as per his
seniority with effect from 01.10.2020. Since the ad hoc promotion of
the applicant was on the basis of departmental examination quota
without having any available vacancy during the year 2008-09, whereas
his regular promotion was based on the seniority-cum-suitability with
effect from 01.10.2020, therefore, he cannot be given the regular
promotion from the date of his ad hoc promotion to the post of Section
Supervisor which would be contrary to the direction given by Hon'ble
CAT Bench, Ahmedabad, which was also upheld by Hon'ble Supreme
Court. Therefore, there is no merit in OA and the same may be
dismissed.
4. The applicant filed rejoinder wherein he has denied the averments
made by the respondent in their reply and further averred that the
coordinate bench of CAT Jaipur Bench in similar case of the similarly
Radhe
Shyam
Songara
Digitally signed by Radhe Shyam
Songara
DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR ", OU=
PRIVATE SECRETARY, PostalCode=
342003, S=Rajasthan,
SERIALNUMBER=
b9df04312f53f00f720974ca155836fa54c
a986db2ee75670488a0e9babb99bf,
CN=Radhe Shyam Songara
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.11.02 10:45:06+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0

12 OA No.268/2022
situated employees in Original Application challenging the similar
notice in OA no. 295/2020, (Dinesh Sharma versus EPFO and others),
had allowed the application filed by the applicant and quashed the
reversion order notices. Moreover, the CAT Jaipur Bench had also
discussed the order of the CAT Ahmedabad Bench, Hon'ble High Court
Gujarat and decided that same cannot be implemented for the employee
working in the Rajasthan region. Therefore, he again reiterated his
prayer that his OA deserves merit and same may be allowed.
5. Heard learned counsel for both sides and perused the contextual
guideline available on record.
6. It is admitted fact that applicant was appointed as LDC on
29.07.1991 and subsequently he was promoted as a UDC on 02.02.1994.
Thereafter as per the Employees Provident Fund Departmental
Examination Scheme, 2002, he was allowed to participate in the
competitive departmental examination against 33% quota, where
according to the list he was declared qualified and his name appeared at
serial no. 17. However, it is evident from the arguments of both the
parties that in the year of 2008-09, there were limited vacancies which
were less than 17 in numbers, therefore, he could not be promoted on
regular basis as Section Supervisor, however, he was given on ad hoc
promotion. Subsequently the applicant had been given regular
promotion on the post of Section Supervisor on 01.10.2020 on the basis
of seniority-cum-suitability quota.
6.1 Now the core issue is that whether the applicant is entitled for
regular promotion from the date of his ad hoc promotion, which was on
Radhe
Shyam
Songara
Digitally signed by Radhe Shyam
Songara
DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR ", OU=
PRIVATE SECRETARY, PostalCode=
342003, S=Rajasthan,
SERIALNUMBER=
b9df04312f53f00f720974ca155836fa54c
a986db2ee75670488a0e9babb99bf,
CN=Radhe Shyam Songara
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.11.02 10:45:06+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0

13 OA No.268/2022
the basis of departmental competitive examination quota with effect
from 05.03.2009 whereas he was given regular promotion on the basis
of seniority-cum-suitability quota with effect from 01.10.2020.
6.2 In order to address the above issue, it is appropriate to mention
some of the facts. It is evident that the similar facts were also discussed
before CAT Ahmedabad Bench, Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court
of Gujarat and also Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein the basic principle was
discussed and decided i.e. whether the select panel prepared on the basis
of departmental competitive examination in a particular year can be
allowed to operate perpetually against the vacancy available in
subsequent years? After detailed deliberation, it was decided by the
aforesaid Courts that the departmental competitive examination is a
provision to the meritorious employees which is limited to the available
vacancies in a particular year when the departmental examination is
notified, and it cannot be operated in perpetuity.
6.3 In the present case also, the fact is that merit of the applicant was
beyond the available vacancy at the time when the departmental
examination was held on 05.10.2004 and 06.10.2004. Therefore, in our
considered view, his case is squarely covered by the principle and ratio
decided by CAT Ahmedabad in OA No.263/2010, which was upheld by
the Hon'ble Apex Court also. Moreover, mere perusal of the promotion
order on ad-hoc basis dated 05.03.2009 (Annexure-A-4), it is clearly
mentioned in the Column No.3 of condition that ‘the period of ad-hoc
promotion will not count towards his probation or seniority in the
event of promotion of regular basis. The effective date of regular
promotion in the cadre of the Senior Supervisor in respect of official
Radhe
Shyam
Songara
Digitally signed by Radhe Shyam
Songara
DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR ", OU=
PRIVATE SECRETARY, PostalCode=
342003, S=Rajasthan,
SERIALNUMBER=
b9df04312f53f00f720974ca155836fa54c
a986db2ee75670488a0e9babb99bf,
CN=Radhe Shyam Songara
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.11.02 10:45:06+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0

14 OA No.268/2022
mentioned in the order shall be the date of assumption of charge to
the post of Section Supervisor within 3 days of receipt of this order,
failing which the individual shall be liable to lose his/her seniority in
the cadre of SS and his/her candidature shall not be considered for
the aforesaid promotion in future.
6.4 Moreover, the para 5 and 6 of the Office Memorandum
No.28036/1/2012-ESTT ( D) dated 3rd April, 2013 issued by Ministry
of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension, provides as follows:-
“5. As already provided in this Department's O.M. No.22011/3/75-Estt.(D)
dated 29th October, 1975, and reiterated in O.M. No. 28036/8/87-Estt. (D)
dated 30.03.1988 and O.M. No.28036/1/2001-Estt. (D) dated 23.07.2001, an
ad-hoc appointment does not bestow on the person a claim for regular
appointment and the service rendered on ad-hoc basis in the grade concerned
also does not count for the purpose of seniority in that grade and for
eligibility for promotion to the next higher grade. As per existing provisions,
these facts are to be clearly spelt out in the orders of the ad-hoc promotions/
ad-hoc appointments. Therefore, such ad-hoc arrangements are neither in the
interest of the individuals nor the organizations concerned. It is, thus, not
appropriate to resort to ad-hoc arrangements in a routine manner.
6 As per existing instructions vide O.M. No.28036/8/87-Estt. (D) dated
30.03.1988 and O.M. No.28036/1/2001-Estt. (D) dated 23.07.2001, the total
period for which the appointment/ promotion may be made, on an ad-hoc
basis, keeping in view the exceptionalities anticipated in these OMs, by the
respective Ministries/ Departments, is limited to one year only. These
instructions further provide that in case of compulsions for extending any ad-
hoc appointment/promotion beyond one year, the approval of the Department
of Personnel and Training is to be sought at least two months in advance
before the expiry of the one year period. Also, if the approval of the
Department of Personnel & Training to the continuance of the ad-hoc
arrangement beyond one year is not received before the expiry of the one
year period, the ad-hoc appointment/promotion shall automatically cease on
the expiry of the one year term. Notwithstanding these provisions, instances
have come to notice of this Department where Ministries/ Departments have
continued ad-hoc arrangements beyond one year without express approval of
this Department, and later on, approached this Department to seek ex-post
facto approval for continuation of such arrangements. It is reiterated that
continuation of any ad-hoc arrangement beyond one year and release of pay
Radhe
Shyam
Songara
Digitally signed by Radhe Shyam
Songara
DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR ", OU=
PRIVATE SECRETARY, PostalCode=
342003, S=Rajasthan,
SERIALNUMBER=
b9df04312f53f00f720974ca155836fa54c
a986db2ee75670488a0e9babb99bf,
CN=Radhe Shyam Songara
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.11.02 10:45:06+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0

15 OA No.268/2022
and allowances for the same, without express approval of this Department is
not in order.”
6.5 Therefore, there is explicitly laid down guidelines issued by DoPT
that ad hoc promotion cannot entitle any employee for regular promotion
or the service rendered on ad-hoc basis in the grade concerned does not
count for the purpose of seniority in that grade, and also for eligibility
for promotion to the next higher grade. Moreover, we are in agreement
with the basic principle of the promotion on the basis of Departmental
Examination quota that it is a career opportunity to meritorious
employee and this opportunity is available to the extent of available
vacancies and such select panel cannot be operated in perpetuity in order
to give chance to the meritorious junior employees through
Departmental Examination in subsequent years.
6.6 So far as the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the
applicant on the judgment of Jaipur Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.
295/2020, along with connected matters, is concerned, we would like to
clarify that the issue involved in the aforesaid matter was different from
the issue arising in the present matter. The applicants in the above
referred matter, were issued show cause notices on 13.04.2017, asking
them to show cause why they should not be reverted from the post of
Section Supervisor (SS), to which they were promoted following the
examination held in the year 2004 since they were in excess of the
sanctioned posts of Section Supervisor (SS) under the EQ, including
those additionally created until 26.12.2018.Whereas, in the present
matter, the applicant is not facing any show cause notice rather, vide an
Office Order dated 28.12.2020 (Annexure-R/8), whereby, he had already
been promoted as a Section Supervisor on regular basis under seniority
Radhe
Shyam
Songara
Digitally signed by Radhe Shyam
Songara
DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR ", OU=
PRIVATE SECRETARY, PostalCode=
342003, S=Rajasthan,
SERIALNUMBER=
b9df04312f53f00f720974ca155836fa54c
a986db2ee75670488a0e9babb99bf,
CN=Radhe Shyam Songara
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.11.02 10:45:06+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0

16 OA No.268/2022
quota w.e.f. 01.10.2020 prior to filing the present OA. During pendency
of the case, he has been further promoted to the post of Enforcement
Officer vide Office Order dated 29.12.2022.The applicant never raised
any grievance against his regular promotion by way of filing any
representation. While filing the present O.A. also, the applicant has not
questioned his promotion under the seniority quota w.e.f. 01.10.2020.
After a period of two years from getting promotion that too without
seeking any modification in the office order dated 28.12.2020
(Annexure-R/8), he is seeking a direction against the respondents to
regularize his services from the date of his ad hoc promotion i.e.
05.03.2009.
6.7 So far as, the effect of the judgment passed by the Jaipur Bench of
this Tribunal is concerned, it did not disagree with the judgment passed
by Ahmedabad Bench in OA No. 263/2010, rather in para No. 6 of its
judgment, Jaipur Bench, observed that there can be no dispute that the
conclusion reached by the Ahmedabad Bench, about the examination to
select candidates for the EQ being a competitive examination, and, not a
qualifying examination, has reached a finality after this decision is
confirmed up to the Hon’ble Apex Court. This decision can certainly be
called a decision in rem, which must be followed, as argued by the
respondents, like the law of the land. However, even laws, normally,
have prospective application and we must see whether the decision of
the Ahmedabad Bench was indeed intended to lay down a law (or to
pronounce a decision in rem) with retrospective application. While
dealing with the question of retrospective application of the judgment,
the Jaipur Bench held that the most justifiable way to implement the
Radhe
Shyam
Songara
Digitally signed by Radhe Shyam
Songara
DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR ", OU=
PRIVATE SECRETARY, PostalCode=
342003, S=Rajasthan,
SERIALNUMBER=
b9df04312f53f00f720974ca155836fa54c
a986db2ee75670488a0e9babb99bf,
CN=Radhe Shyam Songara
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.11.02 10:45:06+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0

17 OA No.268/2022
decision of CAT, Ahmedabad Bench all over the country would be to do
it prospectively.
6.8 Thus, the Jaipur Bench decision does not alter the legal position
settled by Ahmedabad Bench with regard to operation of the select list in
perpetuity. Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special
Application No. 5231/2015, filed against the order of Ahmedabad
Bench in O.A. No. 263/2010 (supra), decided on 13.03.2015, observed
that the merit-list prepared on the basis of earlier departmental
examination, cannot be permitted to be operated till it is exhausted
and the same shall be restricted to only those notified/declared vacancies
at the time of taking the departmental examinations and the same
cannot be termed operative for subsequent vacancies notified for a
particular region.
6.9 The Special Leave Petition [Yusuf V. Mansuri & Ors. Vs. UOI &
Ors.] filed against the order of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, was
rejected therefore, the case of the applicant, who is seeking promotion
under the Examination Quota, based on the select list issued on
09.01.2009, is not sustainable.
6.10 In the present matter of applicant, the question of retrospective or
prospective application of judgment of Ahmedabad Bench, is not in
dispute. The decision of the Jaipur Bench was passed in different
circumstances where-under, applicants of that OA were given show
cause notices proposing their reversion. The applicant herein, has
unnecessarily challenged the communication dated 13.04.2017
(Annexure-A/1), issued by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation
Radhe
Shyam
Songara
Digitally signed by Radhe Shyam
Songara
DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR ", OU=
PRIVATE SECRETARY, PostalCode=
342003, S=Rajasthan,
SERIALNUMBER=
b9df04312f53f00f720974ca155836fa54c
a986db2ee75670488a0e9babb99bf,
CN=Radhe Shyam Songara
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.11.02 10:45:06+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0

18 OA No.268/2022
(EPF Organisation), wherein, direction issued was, ‘to issue show cause
notices’, as to reversion to their original cadre. Since the applicant is not
being reverted, he has wrongly challenged the above communication.
The applicant, after availing of the benefit of promotion under the
seniority quota vide order dated 28.12.2020, cannot seek promotion
under examination quota on the basis of the select list of 2020. It was
not enforceable after deciding the controversy by Ahmedabad Bench
in OA No. 263/2010 (supra).
6.11 In view of the above, in our considered view, there is no infirmity
and illegality in the order passed by the respondents. The OA lacks
merit, hence dismissed. No order as to costs.


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

Rss
Radhe
Shyam
Songara
Digitally signed by Radhe Shyam
Songara
DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR ", OU=
PRIVATE SECRETARY, PostalCode=
342003, S=Rajasthan,
SERIALNUMBER=
b9df04312f53f00f720974ca155836fa54c
a986db2ee75670488a0e9babb99bf,
CN=Radhe Shyam Songara
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.11.02 10:45:06+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0