An employee awaiting regularisation in the feeder grade cannot claim ad-hoc promotion to a higher post.

The applicant, a 2000-batch Indian Revenue Service officer, had been promoted as Deputy Commissioner in 2005, Joint Commissioner in 2010, and Additional Commissioner in 2013.

While serving in the Enforcement Directorate, he was investigated and arrested by the CBI on 20 February 2017 in connection with allegations of corrupt practices.

Since he remained in custody for more than 48 hours, he was placed under deemed suspension under Rule 10(2)(a) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, with effect from that date.

His suspension was periodically extended and was ultimately revoked with effect from 14 July 2024 by order dated 10 July 2024.

Major-penalty charge-sheets were issued against him in 2018 and 2021.

The applicant’s cases for promotion to the grade of Joint Commissioner were placed in sealed cover in successive DPCs because of the pending criminal and disciplinary proceedings.

The respondents contended that the applicant had not yet been regularly promoted or regularised in the feeder grade of Joint Commissioner and therefore could not be considered for promotion to Commissioner.

Whether the applicant, whose promotion or regularisation in the feeder grade of Joint Commissioner remained subject to sealed-cover proceedings, could claim ad-hoc promotion to the higher post of Commissioner from the date of revocation of suspension.

Whether the respondents’ alleged failure to conduct six-monthly reviews of the applicant’s sealed-cover cases entitled him to immediate promotion or ad-hoc promotion.

Whether the respondents should be directed to review the applicant’s sealed-cover cases in accordance with the DoP&T Office Memorandum dated 14 September 1992.

The Tribunal applied Rule 10(2)(a) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, under which a government servant detained in custody for more than 48 hours is liable to deemed suspension.

It relied on the sealed-cover procedure under the DoP&T Office Memorandum dated 14 September 1992, which applies where disciplinary or criminal proceedings are pending and requires periodic review of such cases.

The Tribunal further applied the service-law principle that an employee cannot be promoted to a higher post unless the employee has first acquired regular status in the feeder grade; an ad-hoc or unregularised status in the lower post does not create an enforceable right to promotion to the higher post.

It also held that failure to undertake a procedural six-monthly review does not, by itself, confer a substantive right to promotion where the employee is otherwise not legally eligible.

The treatment of the suspension period and pay was noted as governed by FR 54-B, consistent with the directions issued in O.A. No. 33/2025.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s criminal case and disciplinary proceedings were still pending and that his promotion to the feeder grade of Joint Commissioner had not been regularised because the relevant DPC recommendations remained sealed.

Revocation of suspension did not, by itself, erase the pending proceedings or confer regular status in the feeder grade.

Since regularisation in the grade of Joint Commissioner was a prerequisite to consideration for Commissioner, the applicant could not claim either regular or ad-hoc promotion to the higher post.

Although the respondents appeared not to have undertaken the six-monthly review contemplated by the DoP&T memorandum, that procedural lapse did not create an automatic entitlement to promotion.

Nevertheless, to ensure compliance with the applicable administrative procedure, the Tribunal directed the respondents to review the sealed-cover recommendations and take appropriate action within three months.

It further held that the failure to conduct periodic sealed-cover reviews did not independently establish a right to promotion.

However, the respondents were directed to review the applicant’s sealed-cover cases in accordance with the DoP&T Office Memorandum dated 14 September 1992 and take appropriate action within three months of receiving the order.

The O.A. was accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs.