Adhoc or officiating promotions cannot be granted retrospectively to an employee after superannuation.

The applicant joined the Telegraph Service in 1964 and was promoted to Group B in 1984.

Due to protracted litigation regarding the merger of Telegraph Traffic Service (TTS) and India Telegraph Engineering Service (ITS), his promotions were delayed.

Following orders in OA 136/2002 and OA 645/2003, he was retrospectively promoted to the Senior Time Scale (STS) of TTS Group-A effective 01.11.1997 via an order dated 09.09.2004, issued after his retirement on 31.01.2003.

Subsequently, after further litigation (OA 289/2011), the respondents issued Annexure A-9 (07.12.2013) granting him retrospective promotion to the Junior Administrative Grade (JAG) effective 01.11.2002.

The applicant challenged this order, seeking an earlier date for JAG promotion by claiming parity with ITS officers who were allegedly granted ad-hoc JAG promotions earlier.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to JAG promotion from a date earlier than 01.11.2002 based on ad-hoc/officiating promotions granted to his counterparts in the ITS.

2. Whether officiating/ad-hoc promotions can be granted retrospectively to a retired employee who did not shoulder the responsibilities of the higher post.

Indian Telecommunications Service Recruitment Rules (RR), 1992, which require an STS officer to complete five years of regular service to be eligible for JAG promotion.

"promotion" in service law typically refers to regular promotion; ad-hoc or officiating arrangements are temporary stop-gap measures that do not confer rights to pay fixation or seniority in the higher cadre.

retrospective promotion for the purpose of financial benefits is distinct from ad-hoc officiating, which requires the actual performance of duties.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s regular STS promotion was effective from 01.11.1997.

Under the 1992 RR, he only became eligible for JAG promotion on 01.11.2002, exactly five years later.

Regarding the applicant's claim for parity with ITS officers (e.g., Sri Saju George), the Tribunal noted that while those officers were given ad-hoc JAG officiating roles for operational requirements, their regular JAG promotions occurred after the applicant’s effective JAG date or after his retirement.

The Tribunal rejected the demand for retrospective ad-hoc promotion, reasoning that such appointments are made to meet immediate operational needs and involve actual performance of duties.

Since the applicant had already superannuated when the retrospective STS orders were issued, he could not have performed the higher duties of an ad-hoc JAG post.

Furthermore, the parity mandated by Annexure A-1 applied only to regular promotions, not local ad-hoc arrangements.

It concluded that ad-hoc promotions cannot be granted post-superannuation as they are contingent upon the actual discharge of duties in the higher cadre.

The Original Application was dismissed, and Annexure A-9 was upheld.