An employee may lawfully forego promotion when the prescribed refusal option is timely exercised.

The applicant, a Postal Assistant appointed on 12 January 1990, was serving as Sub-Postmaster (SPM), Kankar Khera Sub-Office, Meerut Division.

He was promoted to the HSG-II cadre by order dated 6 August 2024 and posted as Assistant Postmaster, Mail & Delivery, within Meerut Division by order dated 14 August 2024.

The promotion order permitted an official unwilling to accept promotion to submit a written declination through the Division within 30 days.

The applicant submitted his refusal on 19 August 2024, citing his wife’s treatment for breast cancer.

The respondents rejected the refusal on 10 October 2024 and directed him to join the promotional post, principally on the ground that the posting was within the same Division and no change of headquarters was involved.

The applicant’s subsequent appeal dated 17 October 2024 was not acted upon, leading to the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Whether the respondents were justified in rejecting the applicant’s refusal of promotion and compelling him to join the promotional post despite his declination having been submitted within the prescribed 30-day period?

Whether the posting order dated 14 August 2024 and the rejection order dated 10 October 2024 were legally sustainable insofar as they related to the applicant?

Whether the applicant’s medical circumstances and the fact that the posting remained within the same Division justified consideration of his refusal of promotion?

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 as the jurisdictional basis for the Original Application.

It relied principally on Clause 10 of the promotion order, which expressly allowed an official to decline promotion by submitting a written refusal within 30 days.

The Tribunal held that an employee possesses a personal and inherent right to forgo or waive promotion, and that the employer cannot override a timely exercise of that right merely because other employees accepted promotion or because the posting was within the same Division.

It followed the principle stated by the Allahabad High Court in Hausilal v. State of U.P. & Ors., Writ-A No. 3935 of 2023, that an employee has an inalienable right to forgo promotion, subject to restrictions justified by law and public policy.

The promotion order itself made acceptance optional and prescribed a 30-day period for submitting a declination.

Since the applicant submitted his refusal on 19 August 2024, within the prescribed period, the respondents were required to consider it consistently with the terms of their own order.

The Tribunal held that the respondents’ role was limited to acting fairly upon the option exercised by the applicant; they could not substitute their own preference for his decision to decline promotion.

The fact that the promotional posting was within the same Division, or that similarly placed officials accepted promotion, did not extinguish the applicant’s expressly recognised right of refusal.

The respondents’ objection that the applicant had not initially enclosed detailed medical documents was also rejected, since his wife’s cancer treatment had been consistently pleaded and substantiated during the proceedings.

It held that the applicant had validly exercised his right to decline promotion within the prescribed period and that the respondents were not justified in rejecting his refusal or compelling him to join the promotional post.

Accordingly, the posting order dated 14 August 2024 and the rejection order dated 10 October 2024 were set aside insofar as they related to the applicant.

The Original Application was allowed, pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of, and no order as to costs was made.