Administrative failure to convene a DPC cannot defeat promotion from the date of specific adjustment.

The applicants were regularised as Helpers in 2001. After being denied promotion despite their seniority, they filed SWP No. 2102/2010 before the High Court, which directed the respondents to convene a Departmental Promotion Committee (“DPC”) and consider their promotion to the post of Mechanic by judgment dated 5 September 2012.

Pursuant thereto, the respondents issued an order dated 19 February 2014 adjusting the applicants against the post of Mechanic in the pay scale of Rs. 5,200–20,200 with Grade Pay of Rs. 2,400, in their own pay and grade, subject to DPC clearance. The applicants thereafter continuously performed duties attached to the post. However, the respondents did not convene the DPC for several years. Applicants Nos. 1 and 2 were eventually promoted only from 1 January 2020 and in a lower grade, while Applicant No. 3 was not granted the promotion.

The applicants therefore approached the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking retrospective promotion as Mechanics from 19 February 2014, consequential benefits, and re-fixation of seniority.

Whether the applicants were entitled to be deemed promoted to the post of Mechanic with effect from 19 February 2014, in the pay scale of Rs. 5,200–20,200 with Grade Pay of Rs. 2,400, notwithstanding the subsequent delay in convening the DPC?

Whether the applicants were entitled to re-fixation of their seniority as Mechanics from 19 February 2014 and to consequential monetary, pensionary, and retiral benefits?

Whether the principle stated in Union of India v. K.K. Vadhera barred the grant of retrospective promotional benefits in the present circumstances?

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, concerning applications by aggrieved government servants against service-related orders and omissions.

The governing principle applied was that an employee should not be deprived of promotional benefits due to the administration’s own failure to complete the prescribed DPC process, particularly where the employee had been specifically adjusted against the promotional post and had continuously performed its duties.

The Tribunal considered Union of India v. K.K. Vadhera, but held it distinguishable because the present case involved a specific adjustment to the promotional post followed by administrative failure to convene the DPC.

The Tribunal found that the applicants’ claim was not founded merely on the existence of promotional vacancies. The respondents themselves had adjusted the applicants against the post of Mechanic pursuant to the High Court’s directions, and the applicants had continuously discharged the duties of that post from 19 February 2014.

Since the delay resulted from the respondents’ failure to convene the DPC, the respondents could not rely on their own administrative inaction to deny the applicants the benefits attached to the 19 February 2014 order.

The Tribunal therefore distinguished K.K. Vadhera and treated the applicants’ specific adjustment and continuous service against the promotional post as sufficient grounds for retrospective recognition of their promotion.

The respondents were directed to re-fix the applicants’ seniority as Mechanics from that date and place them above officials junior to them who were promoted subsequently. Their pay was to be notionally re-fixed from 19 February 2014, with consequential monetary and retiral benefits released according to the rules. In respect of Applicant No. 3, the respondents were directed to recalculate and release the resulting pensionary and retiral benefits. The entire exercise was to be completed within six weeks of receipt of the certified copy of the order. No order was made as to costs.