Chandigarh Tribunal Orders Review DPC For Retired Senior Assistant’s Superintendent Promotion, With Notional Promotion And Pension Revision If Found Fit

The applicant, a Senior Assistant, was promoted on 2 February 2010, with that date later regularised, although he claimed his promotion should have taken effect from March 2009, when a vacancy arose.

He also sought promotion to Superintendent Grade-I, whose incumbent retired in March 2016.

The respondents disputed his eligibility, relying on a requirement of ten years’ regular service and contending that the post had been abolished.

The Tribunal considered the challenge to the rejection of his representation and his claims for both promotions

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 provides the basis for the applicant’s original application

Article 16(1) of the Constitution protects an eligible employee’s right to fair consideration for promotion

The Tribunal relied on *Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab* for that principle and on *P.N. Premachandran v. State of Kerala* for the proposition that an employee should not be prejudiced by unexplained administrative delay in convening a DPC or finalising rules

It also applied the principle in *Union of India v. Manpreet Singh Poonam* that promotion ordinarily takes effect from the date of actual promotion, rather than the date a vacancy arose, absent a rule permitting retrospective promotion, and referred to DPC Guideline 6.4.4 on the prospective effect of promotions from a select panel

The Tribunal rejected the claim to antedate the Senior Assistant promotion because the applicant had accepted its effective date of 2 February 2010, and the applicable principle did not ordinarily permit promotion from the earlier vacancy date.

It treated the Superintendent Grade-I claim differently: the applicant was the senior-most Senior Assistant, had been assigned look-after charge, and the respondents’ assertion that the post was abolished was found unsupported by a formal notification and inconsistent with administrative postings.

Applying the right to consideration for promotion and the principle against prejudice caused by administrative delay, the Tribunal ordered consideration by a review DPC once the applicant’s eligibility had crystallised under the applicable rules.

It directed the respondents to convene a review DPC and consider the applicant from the date his eligibility crystallised; if found fit, he was to receive notional promotion and consequential benefits, including revision of pensionary and retiral benefits.

The exercise was to be completed within three months of receipt of the certified order; no costs were awarded.