An empanelled employee who retires before promotion cannot claim promotional pay without serving in the higher post.

The applicant, a Senior Loco Pilot, was removed from service following a departmental proceeding arising from a 2006 train collision.

On revision, the penalty was modified: he was reinstated as Senior Assistant Loco Pilot at the initial stage of the pay scale for three years, after which the normal channel of promotion would resume.

The applicant rejoined on 18 September 2007.

He was later empanelled for promotion to Loco Pilot (Goods/Diesel), attended mandatory training and sat the suitability examination on 6 November 2012.

The result, which listed him as successful, was issued on 2 January 2013, after his superannuation on 31 December 2012.

Following repeated representations and an earlier Tribunal direction to decide his claim, the respondents rejected his request for promotion-related pay and revised retirement benefits by a speaking order dated 25 April 2024.

The applicant challenged that rejection and sought consequential benefits.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to promotion to Loco Pilot (Goods/Diesel), and the corresponding pay and retirement benefits, where the suitability-test result declaring him successful was issued after his superannuation

2. Whether the delay in declaring the result was attributable to administrative negligence or mala fides warranting relief

The Tribunal identified no specific statutory provision, service rule, or judicial precedent as the basis of its decision.

It relied on the terms of the revisional order, which provided that the normal channel of promotion would resume after completion of the three-year punishment period.

The Tribunal treated promotion as requiring completion of the prescribed selection process and concluded that an employee who had not been posted to, or performed the duties of, the promotional post was not entitled to that post’s pay benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had been included in the promotion process, completed training, and was declared successful, but only after he had retired.

It accepted the respondents’ explanation that the promotion process involved vacancy assessment, training, examination, and evaluation of records, and found no specific evidence of negligence or mala fides in the timing of the result.

Because the applicant had neither been posted to nor performed the duties of Loco Pilot (Goods/Diesel), the Tribunal held that he could not claim the promotional post’s pay and consequential financial benefits.

It dismissed the O.A., including the challenge to the order dated 25 April 2024 and the claims for revised settlement, PPO, and consequential benefits, with no order as to costs.