Approved DPC empanelment requires consideration for notional promotion where vacancy denial remains unsubstantiated.

The applicant joined the Railways as Junior Engineer (Mechanical) on 10 November 1986 and was promoted as Assistant Works Manager (Junior Scale Officer), Group ‘B’, with effect from 30 September 2014.

A local Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was convened on 5 February 2019 to consider eligible officers for ad hoc promotion to Senior Scale carrying Grade Pay of ₹6,600.

The applicant’s name appeared at Serial No. 3 in the recommendations approved by the competent authority on 6 February 2019, subject to his being clear from disciplinary, vigilance, and related proceedings.

The applicant challenged the respondents’ order dated 24 November 2021 and sought notional promotion with consequential retiral benefits.

Whether the applicant, having been included at Serial No. 3 in the competent authority-approved DPC recommendations dated 6 February 2019, was entitled to consideration for ad hoc/notional promotion to Senior Scale when vacancies became available.

Whether the respondents were justified in denying promotion on the ground of non-availability of vacancies and cadre restructuring without producing particulars of the sanctioned strength and available vacancies.

Whether the impugned order dated 24 November 2021 was sustainable.

The Tribunal applied the service-law principles governing promotion through a duly constituted DPC, namely that an approved panel or recommendation must be acted upon in accordance with the applicable promotional scheme, subject to the availability of vacancies and other prescribed conditions.

It accepted the respondents’ position that Group ‘A’ Junior Scale officers ordinarily became eligible for regular promotion to Senior Scale after five years of regular service, while Group ‘B’ Junior Scale officers could be considered for ad hoc promotion where Group ‘A’ officers were unavailable and vacancies existed.

The Tribunal further applied the principle that an administrative plea of non-availability of vacancies or reduction in cadre strength must be supported by relevant particulars and cannot rest on a bare assertion.

The Tribunal found that the competent authority had approved the applicant’s placement at Serial No. 3 for promotion to Senior Scale on an ad hoc basis and had directed that his posting be obtained and necessary sanction taken, subject to vigilance clearance.

Although the respondents relied on cadre restructuring and shortage of vacancies, they did not furnish details showing any reduction in the sanctioned strength of Senior Scale posts or explaining the vacancies arising after the DPC recommendations.

The Tribunal therefore considered the respondents’ stand inconsistent with the record and insufficient to defeat the applicant’s claim for consideration under the approved panel.

Since the applicant had already retired, the appropriate relief was confined to consideration for notional promotion rather than actual promotion with service during the post-retirement period.

It rejected/set aside the impugned order dated 24 November 2021 and directed the respondents to consider the applicant’s case for notional promotion in terms of the promotion order dated 6 February 2019 within four weeks.

The Original Application was disposed of accordingly, without the order expressly granting arrears or recalculation of retiral benefits.