Benefit of Revised Seniority and Promotion Cannot Be Cancelled Post-Retirement Despite Pending Policy Clarifications

The applicant, a Himachal Pradesh Forest Service (HPFS) officer since 1983, was promoted to the Indian Forest Service (IFS) in 1993 with a 1989 year of allotment

Relying on the K.K. Goswami case, he sought the inclusion of "State Deputation Reserve" (Item No. 5) in the senior duty post calculation to revise his year of allotment to 1987

Consequently, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF) issued an order on 24.09.2018 revising his allotment year to 1987

However, on 21.05.2019, the Ministry kept this order in abeyance pending further review

Despite this, the applicant was promoted to Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF) under interim judicial protection and retired on 30.09.2020

Post-retirement, the Ministry issued an order dated 11.12.2020 canceling the 1987 allotment year revision entirely, citing DoP advice against retrospective vacancy re-determination

1. Whether the respondents could legally cancel the revised year of allotment (1987) after the applicant had already superannuated from service.

2. Whether the exclusion of "State Deputation Reserve" (Item No. 5) in calculating the promotion quota for IFS was sustainable in light of prior judicial precedents.

The court primarily considered the Indian Forest Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1968, and the Indian Forest Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, 1966, regarding the definition of Senior Duty Posts

It relied on the precedent set in K.K. Goswami v. Union of India (Jabalpur Bench), which established that Item No. 5 (State Deputation Reserve) must be included when calculating the 33-1/3% promotion quota

Furthermore, the court applied the principle from a Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court (CWP No. 837/2015) which holds that benefits granted to an employee generally cannot be withdrawn, nor can a reversion be ordered, after the employee’s retirement

The Tribunal observed that the applicant’s right to the 1987 allotment year was based on settled judicial interpretations (K.K. Goswami) which the respondents initially accepted and implemented via the 24.09.2018 order

The respondents’ sudden reversal via the impugned order of 11.12.2020 was characterized as a "flip-flop approach" influenced by DoPT's administrative concerns over cadre structure rather than legal merit

The court noted that while direct recruit officers had challenged such revisions in other forums, the respondents themselves had supported the legality of the K.K. Goswami interpretation in prior pleadings

Crucially, since the applicant had already attained superannuation, the Tribunal found it inequitable and legally improper to withdraw the seniority benefits and initiate potential recoveries post-retirement

It held that the seniority of the year 1987 is restored to the applicant, subject to the final outcome of any pending writ petitions on the broader legal issue

The court directed that no recovery shall be affected from the applicant's pensionary or service benefits

This order was specifically noted not to be cited as a general precedence