AIR Executive Who Retired Before DPC Denied Backdated Promotion, Having Never Served As Programme Executive: CAT

The applicant, a Transmission Executive (TREX) appointed in 1992, sought consideration for promotion to Programme Executive (PEx), alleging that the respondents’ failure to hold regular Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meetings had denied him promotion before retirement.

He relied, among other things, on Department of Personnel and Training instructions requiring timely DPCs and an Office Memorandum concerning consideration of retired employees in year-wise panels.

The respondents stated that regular promotions had been stalled by an interim stay of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court and that the applicant was at serial number 410 in the seniority list.

The applicant retired on 31 May 2013; the Tribunal recorded that a DPC was later convened, but his name was not considered because he had retired.

The OA, initially dismissed for non-prosecution, was restored in 2026.

Under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant invoked the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to challenge the alleged denial of promotion.

The Tribunal applied the principle stated in Government of West Bengal & Ors. v. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors., Civil Appeal (Diary No. 43488 of 2013), that an employee has a right to fair consideration for promotion, but no absolute right to promotion; promotion takes effect upon assumption of duties in the higher post, not merely on the occurrence of a vacancy or a recommendation, and a person who retires before promotion is effected is not entitled to retrospective financial benefits for a post not held.

The applicant also relied on DoPT instructions concerning timely DPCs and consideration of retired employees in year-wise panels, but the Tribunal did not find that they entitled him to retrospective promotion in the circumstances of this case.

The Tribunal accepted that the applicant had not been promoted and that he had retired before the later DPC.

It noted that the respondents attributed the delay in regular promotions to a High Court stay, a circumstance the applicant had not rebutted, and that the applicant stood at serial number 410 in the seniority list.

Applying Dr. Amal Satpathi, the Tribunal held that the applicant’s claim could not result in retrospective promotion because he had not assumed the duties and responsibilities of the higher post before retirement.

It therefore found no basis to grant the relief sought, notwithstanding the applicant’s arguments regarding delayed DPCs and post-retirement consideration.

No order as to costs was made.