Administrative delay in conducting DPC cannot deprive retired employees of retrospective benefits granted to junior counterparts.

The Applicant, a retired Section Officer (SO) of the UPSC, was appointed as an SO on an ad-hoc basis and continued until his superannuation on 30.11.2013

He was eligible for regular promotion under the Seniority Quota for the Select List of 2009, appearing at Sl. No. 39 in the list forwarded by the DoPT

Although a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held on 15.10.2013 found him fit, his case was deferred due to the non-availability of his ACR for 2007–2008

A subsequent DPC again found him fit, but the UPSC declined to issue promotion orders because the applicant had retired by then

Meanwhile, the Applicant’s juniors (e.g., Shri Rajagopal) were granted regular promotion and Non-Functional Scale (NFS) with a Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- effective retrospectively from 01.07.2013 via orders issued in late 2013

The Applicant sought parity in pay fixation and pension revision

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to retrospective pay fixation and Non-Functional Scale (NFS) benefits on par with his juniors who were granted such benefits despite the DPC being held after the applicant's retirement?

2. Whether administrative delays in conducting a DPC and the subsequent retirement of an eligible officer can legally justify the denial of financial benefits when those benefits were accorded to similarly placed juniors?

The Tribunal considered Fundamental Rule (FR) 22(1)(a)(1) and Rule 13 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 regarding pay fixation

It examined Rule 12 and Rule 2(c)(iii) of the Central Secretariat Service (CSS) Rules, 2009, which define "approved service" and the methodology for filling vacancies in the SO grade

The court also referenced DoPT O.M. No. 22011/4/98-Estt. (D) dated 12.10.1998, which mandates that retired officers within the zone of consideration must be considered by the DPC to identify the correct zone

Crucially, the Tribunal distinguished between functional promotion and Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU/NFS), asserting they are not equivalent

The Tribunal observed that the delay in regularizing the applicant was purely administrative, caused by the late notification of regulations in 2013 and the absence of the applicant's ACRs at the time of the initial DPC

The respondents argued that promotions are prospective and notional fixation is generally discontinued from 2009 onwards

However, the Tribunal found this argument unsustainable because the respondents had already issued retrospective benefits to the applicant’s junior, Shri Rajagopal, through an order dated 30.12.2013 (after the applicant's retirement), which fixed the junior's pay from 01.07.2007 and granted NFS from 01.07.2013

The Tribunal emphasized that since the applicant was eligible and found fit, he could not be discriminated against due to administrative lapses

It distinguished the present case from Pradip Kumar Gupta v. UOI, noting that in the latter, juniors had not received retrospective benefits, whereas here, they had

The respondents were directed to: 1. Pass appropriate re-fixation orders for the applicant vis-à-vis Shri Rajagopal in terms of the Office Order dated 30.12.2013

2. Issue revised pay fixation and pension orders within two months of receiving the order

3. Grant arrears, however, restricted to a period of three years prior to the filing of the O.A. (2016), as the claim pertained to NFS and not functional promotion