CAT directs NHAI to reconsider delayed promotions of senior engineers after finding unequal application of the “junior-senior” relaxation rule

The applicants were Managers (Technical) in the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). They had been promoted as Managers (Technical) with notional effect from 01.01.2017 and claimed that, by the relevant eligibility date in 2021, they had completed more than four years of service in that grade. NHAI issued an advertisement dated 02.11.2020 for promotion to 66 posts of Deputy General Manager (Technical) (DGM), but the applicants were not considered. Certain officers who were allegedly junior to them in the Manager (Technical) cadre were promoted as DGM with effect from 07.06.2021. The applicants were subsequently promoted as DGM with effect from 11.03.2022, and sought retrospective promotion from 07.06.2021 with consequential seniority and monetary benefits

The private respondents had entered NHAI as Managers (Technical) on deputation and were subsequently absorbed. Their deputation service was counted for eligibility for promotion pursuant to earlier judicial proceedings, and they were promoted as DGM on 07.06.2021. The respondents contended that the applicants had not completed five years of regular service required under the 2016 Recruitment Regulations, that the DoPT O.M. could not override the statutory Regulations, and that the applicants’ challenge was barred by limitation because the 2021 promotion order and subsequent seniority lists had not been challenged

The applicants relied on the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 25.03.1996, under which a senior who falls short of the prescribed qualifying service by not more than half of that service or two years, whichever is less, may be considered along with a junior who has completed the requisite service. They also relied on Regulations 15(3) and 22 of the NHAI Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion Regulations, 2012, arguing that DoPT instructions applied where the NHAI Regulations were silent

Whether the DoPT O.M. dated 25.03.1996—the “junior-senior” relaxation clause—was applicable to the NHAI Technical cadre through Regulations 15(3) and 22, notwithstanding its absence from the applicable Technical cadre Recruitment Regulations

Whether the applicants, being senior in the Manager (Technical) cadre and allegedly short of the prescribed qualifying service by a permissible period, were entitled to consideration for promotion to DGM (Technical) along with the officers promoted on 07.06.2021

Whether service rendered by absorbed deputationists as Managers (Technical) could be counted for eligibility for promotion without altering their inter se seniority, and whether that principle was distinct from the junior-senior rule

Whether the applicants’ claims were barred by limitation, delay, laches, or their failure to challenge the relevant promotion and seniority lists

The Tribunal applied the NHAI Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion Regulations, 2012, particularly Regulation 15(3), which required seniority to be determined in accordance with DoPT instructions, and Regulation 22, which made Central Government service rules and instructions applicable to matters not specifically covered by the NHAI Regulations

It applied the NHAI Recruitment Regulations, 2016, under which promotion from Manager (Technical) to DGM (Technical) required five years’ regular service in the feeder post

The Tribunal relied on the DoPT O.M. dated 25.03.1996, which permits consideration of a senior along with a junior where the senior lacks the prescribed qualifying service by not more than half of that service or two years, whichever is less, subject to the other conditions being fulfilled

It also relied on K. Madhavan v. Union of India, S.I. Rooplal v. Lt. Governor, Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, Neetu Bhagat v. All India Council for Technical Education, and Rites Ltd., for the principle that service rendered on deputation in the same post or equivalent grade may count as regular service for promotional eligibility unless the governing rules provide otherwise

The Tribunal distinguished inter se seniority from eligibility service and held that an executive instruction cannot override statutory rules where the field is specifically occupied, but may operate through a valid residuary provision where the Regulations are silent

It also considered the principles of fairness under Articles 14 and 16 and the right of an eligible employee to fair consideration for promotion, as recognised in Union of India v. Hemraj Singh Chauhan and related authorities

The Tribunal found that the NHAI Regulations did not expressly address whether qualifying service rendered in the relevant post on deputation, or the junior-senior situation created by differential eligibility dates, was to be recognised. Applying Regulations 15(3) and 22, it held that applicable DoPT instructions and general service-law principles could fill that gap.

The Tribunal accepted that the private respondents’ deputation service could be counted for eligibility, but held that this did not automatically justify altering their inter se seniority. It further held that NHAI had itself applied the junior-senior principle in other Technical cadre promotions, including the Office Order dated 24.11.2022, and could not adopt an inconsistent position to deny the same principle to the applicants without a rational basis

The applicants’ seniority in the Manager (Technical) cadre was reflected in the final seniority list dated 25.05.2023, while officers placed below them had been promoted as DGM from 07.06.2021. The Tribunal considered the distinction between the applicants’ regular service and the qualifying deputation service of the private respondents, but concluded that the two principles were independent: deputation service could establish eligibility for the deputationists, while the junior-senior clause required consideration of the applicants as seniors once their juniors were considered.

The respondents’ reliance on Union of India v. Himanshu Prabhakar and the subsequent amendment of 2024 was rejected because the Tribunal considered Regulation 22 and the NHAI’s own conduct sufficient to apply the DoPT O.M. in the present case

The limitation objection was not accepted, and the Tribunal treated the applicants’ claim as requiring correction of their promotional position in light of the final seniority list and the continuing consequences of the 2021 promotions

NHAI was directed to convene a Departmental Promotion Committee and reconsider the applicants for promotion to DGM (Technical), with their promotions to be ante-dated to the date on which the private respondents were promoted, subject to the applicants otherwise satisfying the applicable conditions.

The exercise was directed to be completed within two months from receipt of the certified copy of the order. The interim orders were made absolute, miscellaneous applications were disposed of, and there was no order as to costs