Administrative delay cannot deprive a qualified employee of notional promotion and pensionary benefits after retirement.

The applicant was appointed as a Railway Khalasi on 03.07.1986 and was subsequently promoted to Senior Technician.

He was nominated, at Serial No. 19 in the seniority-based list, for the post of Junior Engineer, Level-6, under the 25% ranker quota.

He appeared in the written examination held on 22.10.2020 and was declared successful on 21.01.2021.

He retired on superannuation on 31.01.2021.

The final panel was issued only on 21/22.04.2021, after his retirement, and his juniors, including Respondent No. 5, were empanelled/promoted.

The applicant contended that the delay violated Railway Board instructions requiring expeditious declaration of results and that his representations dated 22.01.2021 and 27.01.2021 were ignored.

The respondents justified the delay on the ground that a supplementary selection had to be conducted for an eligible candidate who had missed the examination due to illness, pursuant to Para 223 of the IREM, Volume I.

1. Whether an employee who qualified in a promotional written examination while still in service could be denied consideration for empanelment merely because the final panel was issued after his retirement.

2. Whether the respondents’ delay in finalising the panel, owing to a supplementary selection process, could operate to the prejudice of the applicant who had qualified before retirement and was senior to the empanelled juniors.

3. Whether the applicant was entitled to notional promotion and consequential re-fixation of pensionary benefits, without arrears of salary for the post-retirement period.

The Tribunal applied Railway Board’s instructions contained in RBE No. 97 dated 14.06.2019, which required expeditious declaration of promotional examination results and recognised that such examinations were intended to facilitate, rather than unnecessarily defeat, the career progression of eligible employees.

Under the applicable Master Circular, an employee securing the prescribed qualifying marks in professional ability and aggregate was eligible for placement in the panel, with selected candidates arranged according to seniority.

Para 223 of the IREM, Volume I, permits a supplementary selection or suitability test where an eligible employee is unable to appear in the original selection due to sickness or another reason beyond his control, subject to the prescribed conditions.

The Tribunal also applied the principle that an employee should not suffer because of administrative delay not attributable to him and relied upon Bishambar v. Union of India & Ors., OA No. 2802/2019, and Bishamber v. Ministry of Railways, OA No. 2118/2018, in support of moulding consequential relief where delay affects a legitimate promotional claim.

The Tribunal accepted that the respondents possessed authority to conduct a supplementary selection under Para 223 of the IREM, but held that the permissibility of that process did not automatically justify depriving the applicant of a benefit already accruing from his successful participation.

The applicant had qualified on 21.01.2021, before retiring on 31.01.2021, had asserted his claim through timely representations, and was not alleged to have failed any qualifying requirement.

Since he was senior to Respondent No. 5, the delay in completing the panel potentially altered his position vis-à-vis his juniors.

The respondents could not rely on their own administrative delay to extinguish his claim.

Nevertheless, because the applicant had retired and had not actually worked as a Junior Engineer, the appropriate remedy was not actual promotion with salary arrears, but notional consideration and promotion for determining pensionary consequences.

The respondents were directed to reconsider the applicant’s empanelment for promotion to Junior Engineer, Level-6, under the 25% ranker quota, on the basis of the examination held on 22.10.2020, treating him as continuing in service for the limited purpose of panel consideration despite his retirement.

If found entitled according to merit and seniority, he was to be granted notional promotion from the date his immediate junior was promoted, or such other date as applicable under the rules.

His pay was to be notionally fixed and his pension, gratuity and other pensionary benefits re-fixed accordingly, but no salary arrears were payable for the period after retirement during which he did not perform the promotional duties.

The exercise was to be completed within three months, with consequential pensionary benefits released within two further months.

No existing employee’s promotion was to be disturbed except to the extent necessary to adjust the applicant’s position in the panel under the applicable rules.