An employee who retires before promotion is effectuated is not entitled to retrospective promotion benefits.

The applicant, an Examiner Highly Skilled-II, passed the trade test for promotion to Examiner Highly Skilled-I in July 2012 but was not promoted with four senior employees.

She contended that an unreserved vacancy was available and sought promotion from 19 July 2012 with consequential benefits.

After her representation was rejected, she brought this application; she had retired on 31 December 2012.

The respondents maintained that the four unreserved vacancies had been filled by employees senior to her and that the later promotion of another employee arose from a subsequent vacancy.

The Tribunal considered the applicant’s claim on its merits and the effect of her retirement on the relief sought.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to promotion to Examiner Highly Skilled-I from 19 July 2012, having passed the trade test and claimed that an unreserved vacancy was available.

2. Whether, following her retirement, the applicant could obtain retrospective or notional promotion with consequential financial and pensionary benefits.

An employee has a right to consideration for promotion under the applicable rules, but eligibility—including passing a trade test—does not create an indefeasible or vested right to promotion.

Promotion depends on the applicable rules, availability and classification of vacancies, seniority, suitability, and other prescribed conditions.

Relying on Government of West Bengal & Ors. v. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors., 2024 INSC 906, the Tribunal stated that promotion becomes effective upon its grant and assumption of the promotional post’s duties, not merely from the date a vacancy arises or a recommendation is made; it relied on that decision in rejecting retrospective/notional promotional benefits for the applicant, who had retired without promotion being effectuated.

The applicant’s successful trade test established eligibility but did not itself entitle her to promotion.

The Tribunal accepted the respondents’ account that, as of 2 July 2012, there were four unreserved vacancies and one ST/backlog vacancy, and that the unreserved vacancies were filled by candidates senior to the applicant.

It found that the later promotion of the employee at Serial No. 50 resulted from a subsequent vacancy and did not establish an unreserved vacancy available to the applicant on 19 July 2012.

Nor did the material establish that the vacancy allegedly arising on the retirement of another employee was an available unreserved vacancy under the applicable roster and rules.

The applicant also failed to show that a junior in the same category had been promoted against an unreserved vacancy from the claimed date.

In any event, because she retired without promotion having been granted, the Tribunal applied Dr. Amal Satpathi to reject the claim for retrospective or notional promotion and associated benefits.

It dismissed the Original Application as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.