Administrative delay cannot deny eligible employees retrospective promotion from dates promotional vacancies arose.

The applicants, working as Gate Keepers in the Andaman and Nicobar Administration, were eligible for promotion to the post of Weigh Bridge Operator under the applicable Recruitment Rules.

Vacancies existed in the promotional posts before their promotion was granted.

Pursuant to the Tribunal’s order dated 13 January 2022 in O.A. No. 351/1587/2019, the applicants were promoted as Weigh Bridge Operators by order dated 23 August 2022, but only with prospective effect from the date of the promotion order.

The applicants claimed that their promotion ought to have taken effect from the dates on which the vacancies arose and they became eligible.

They asserted that the delay resulted from administrative inaction and not from any fault on their part.

Their representations through their Union were not considered, leading to the present Original Application.

The respondents contended that the delay was connected with the merger of the Watchman and Gate Keeper cadres into the MTS cadre and related litigation.

They further submitted that promotion ordinarily takes effect only after approval by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), and that retrospective promotion should not be granted absent a specific judicial direction.

Whether the applicants were entitled to have their promotion as Weigh Bridge Operators given effect from the dates on which the promotional vacancies arose and they became eligible, rather than from the date of the promotion order.

Whether the respondents’ administrative delay and the pendency of related litigation justified denying the applicants retrospective seniority and consequential promotional benefits.

The Tribunal applied the principle that an eligible employee should not be deprived of the benefits of promotion, including seniority and eligibility for further promotion, due to administrative inaction not attributable to the employee.

It also relied on the earlier Tribunal order in O.A. No. 351/1587/2019, which held that the pendency of O.A. No. 351/1015/2019 had not stayed the promotion process and that the respondents had been at liberty to proceed with the promotions.

Although the respondents relied on the general administrative practice that promotion ordinarily follows DPC approval and that retrospective promotion is not automatic, the Tribunal held that this practice could not justify prejudice caused by the respondents’ unjustified failure to process the applicants’ promotions.

The Tribunal found that the applicants’ eligibility and the existence of vacancies well preceded the eventual promotions.

The respondents’ justification based on pending litigation was rejected because the earlier Tribunal order had expressly recorded that the promotion process was not stayed and that the respondents could proceed with it.

Since the delay was caused by the respondents’ failure to convene the DPC and process the promotions, rather than by any omission of the applicants, denying them retrospective effect would adversely affect their seniority and eligibility for subsequent promotion.

Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the applicants should have been promoted when the vacancies arose and they became eligible.

However, the applicants were not granted arrears of back wages, if any.

The directions were to be implemented within 90 days from receipt of the Tribunal’s order.

No order as to costs was made.