Administrative inaction in regularizing long-term officiating service cannot deprive employees of retrospective promotion and parity.

The applicant was appointed as a Clerk-cum-Typist in the Law Department in 1974

In 1995, he was permitted to officiate as a Senior Assistant on an ad-hoc basis, a position he held for seventeen years until his retirement on March 31, 2012

Despite repeated recommendations for his regularization by the Director Litigation in 1997 and 1998, the State took no final action

Meanwhile, several of the applicant's juniors were promoted to the posts of Head Assistant and Section Officer

Following a series of litigations (SWP No. 1849/2012 and LPA No. 107/2012), the High Court directed the respondents to consider his claim on merits

Consequently, the respondents issued Order No. 1779-LD(Lit) of 2017, rejecting the applicant’s claim on the grounds that his officiating appointment was an internal arrangement not made by a competent authority and that no vacancy existed in his parent cadre

The applicant challenged this rejection seeking retrospective regularization and promotional benefits

1. Whether the prolonged inaction of the State in regularizing an employee who officiated in a higher post for 17 years constitutes an arbitrary exercise of power

2. Whether an employee can be denied retrospective promotional benefits and pension refixation on the ground of superannuation if the claim was initiated during their service tenure

3. Whether the promotion of junior officials while overlooking the applicant’s long-term officiating service violates the principles of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution

The Tribunal primarily applied the constitutional guarantees of equality and opportunity in public employment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India

It relied on the settled legal principle that administrative lapses or failures by the employer to convene a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) should not operate to the detriment of an otherwise eligible employee

Furthermore, the Tribunal recognized the doctrine of "notional benefits," which allows for the retrospective grant of seniority and pay fixation when an employee is denied promotion due to the employer's fault

The Tribunal reasoned that while officiating promotions do not automatically grant a right to substantive promotion, the "extraordinary length of officiation" (17 years) in this case created a unique equity in favor of the applicant

The record established that departmental authorities had repeatedly recommended regularization, yet the State failed to act or convene a DPC, which the Tribunal characterized as "prolonged inaction"

By extracting duties of a higher post without formalizing the status, and simultaneously promoting juniors, the State acted in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' argument regarding the applicant's retirement, noting that the litigation began during his service and the delay was purely administrative

Consequently, the refusal to grant parity with juniors was deemed a violation of the equality clause, as the applicant’s "legitimate expectation" was ignored in the impugned order

It held that the applicant must be treated as regularly promoted to Senior Assistant effective from his initial officiating date of March 10, 1995

The respondents were directed to grant the applicant notional promotions to the posts of Head Assistant and Section Officer from the dates his immediate juniors were promoted

While the Tribunal denied arrears of salary for the period prior to retirement, it ordered the respondents to refix his pay notionally and pay all arrears arising from the revision of his pensionary benefits within three months