Continuous in-charge service requires consideration for retrospective regularization and consequential seniority and monetary benefits.

The applicant, Devi Dass, was placed as In-charge Junior Assistant in his own pay and grade by order dated 31 July 2019, against an available vacancy, after clearing the type test and subject to clearance by the Divisional Level Promotion Committee.

He was also entitled to charge allowance under the applicable rules.

Subsequently, Government Order No. 23-DSEJ of 2026 dated 9 March 2026 granted him promotion as Junior Assistant with effect from 20 October 2025, rather than from 31 July 2019.

The applicant challenged the retrospective limitation of his promotion and sought seniority and consequential monetary benefits from 31 July 2019.

The respondents admitted the applicant’s placement as In-charge Junior Assistant against an available vacancy.

Whether the applicant’s promotion or regularization as Junior Assistant ought to take effect from 31 July 2019, when he was placed as In-charge Junior Assistant against an available vacancy, instead of 20 October 2025?

Whether the applicant was entitled to consequential benefits, including seniority and monetary benefits, on account of service rendered in the higher post before formal promotion?

The Tribunal applied the principle that where an employee continuously works in a higher post for several years without interruption and is subsequently regularized or confirmed in that post, the period of prior service cannot ordinarily be disregarded for seniority and other consequential benefits unless the applicable rules expressly prohibit such counting.

It relied principally on Suraj Prakash Gupta v. State of J&K & Ors., (2000) 7 SCC 561, which recognizes that retrospective regularization of temporary, ad hoc, or stop-gap service may be permissible where the employee has served for a long period without fault on his part.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had been placed as In-charge Junior Assistant on 31 July 2019 after clearing the type test and against an available vacancy, and that the respondents had not shown that the principles in Suraj Prakash Gupta were inapplicable.

Since the applicant had performed the duties of the higher post continuously and the subsequent promotion was based on the recommendation of the competent promotion committee, the Tribunal held that his earlier service could not be ignored merely because formal promotion was granted later.

Applying the principle that continuous service in the higher post may be counted for regularization and consequential benefits, the Tribunal found the effective date of 20 October 2025 unsustainable.

The Tribunal quashed the impugned order dated 9 March 2026 to the extent that it granted the applicant promotion as Junior Assistant with effect from 20 October 2025.

The respondents were directed to consider regularizing the applicant’s services as Junior Assistant retrospectively from 31 July 2019, the date of his placement on In-charge basis.

They were further directed to extend consequential benefits, including seniority and monetary benefits, within three months from receipt of the certified copy of the order.

No order as to costs was made.