Administrative delays in cadre reviews do not create a vested right to retrospective notional promotion.

The twenty applicants are Assistant Grade-I officers serving in four different Lucknow-based institutes under the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR)

They filed this Original Application (OA) seeking a direction for the respondents to complete a long-delayed cadre review and grant them notional promotion from 29.09.2014 (the date the review committee was constituted)

The applicants argued that despite Department of Personnel Training (DoPT) guidelines suggesting a five-year review cycle, CSIR had not conducted a review since 1994, leading to stagnation

During the pendency of the case, the respondents completed the review and notified the Administrative Services Recruitment Promotion (ASRP) Rules, 2020, effective from 01.01.2020

Whether the respondents had completed the cadre review process and implemented the revised sanctioned strength as prayed for by the applicants

Whether the applicants are legally entitled to notional promotion with retrospective effect from 29.09.2014 due to the delay in the cadre review process

The court relied on DoPT Office Memoranda (dated 23.11.1987, 20.12.2016, and 30.09.2022), which establish that the five-year periodicity for cadre reviews is advisory (using terms like "may," "ideal," and "should") rather than having statutory force

It further applied the principle from Government of West Bengal Ors vs Dr. Amal Satpathi Ors (2024), which clarifies that promotion is effective from the date of grant, not the date a vacancy arises or a post is created

The Tribunal also distinguished the precedents in Union of India vs Hemraj Singh Chauhan (2010) and S Ramanath vs Union of India (2001), noting those cases involved mandatory statutory duties under the IAS/IPS Cadre Rules, whereas the present guidelines were non-statutory and advisory

The Tribunal found that the first prayer regarding the completion of the cadre review was satisfied, as the respondents had notified the revised cadre structure and the ASRP Rules, 2020, during the litigation

Regarding retrospective promotion, the court reasoned that the DoPT guidelines governing the CSIR do not impose a statutory obligation to conduct reviews at fixed intervals, nor do they provide for retrospective seniority

The court emphasized that promotion is not a fundamental right, and since the posts resulting from the review did not exist in 2014, promotional benefits could not be granted for that period

The court noted that administrative delays in complex processes involving multiple approvals do not create a vested right to retrospective promotion, particularly when the underlying rules for the review are advisory in nature

The OA was disposed of on the grounds that the primary relief had been addressed by the respondents' subsequent actions and the secondary relief for retrospective promotion lacked legal merit

The parties were ordered to bear their own costs