Court directs administrative decision on time-bound representation for promotion of eligible Loco Pilot Shunters.

The 74 applicants, currently serving as Loco Pilot Shunter-II (Pay Level 4) in the DDU Division of East Central Railway, sought a direction for promotion to the post of Loco Pilot Shunter-I (Pay Level 6/Grade Pay 4200/-).

They entered service as Assistant Loco Pilots, were promoted to Senior Assistant Loco Pilots in 2018, and subsequently to their current positions.

The applicants claimed that having completed the requisite two years of service, they are eligible for the next grade of promotion, which the respondents allegedly failed to grant despite vacancies.

While some applicants submitted a representation on August 27, 2024, the department had not finalized their claims.

The respondents contended that out of 74 applicants, 54 were eligible, 33 had already been promoted, and the remaining would be considered based on operational exigencies.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to a mandatory direction for promotion to the post of Loco Pilot Shunter-I based on their completion of the two-year eligibility period.

2. Whether the respondents’ delay in processing promotions due to internal deliberations on sanctioned posts constitutes arbitrary action.

The court followed established administrative law principles regarding the limited scope of judicial interference in promotion matters; specifically, that while an employee has a right to be considered for promotion under Article 16 of the Constitution of India, there is no absolute right to be promoted unless prescribed by specific statutory rules.

The court relied on the principle that the executive must decide on representations regarding service grievances through reasoned and speaking orders within a reasonable timeframe to prevent arbitrary delays.

The Tribunal noted that the applicants had completed the two-year eligibility service required for the Grade Pay 4200/- level.

The respondents admitted that a significant portion of the applicants were eligible and that the promotion process was ongoing, though partially stalled due to "operational exigencies" and internal deliberations regarding the necessity of sanctioned posts.

The applicants countered that withholding promotions based on speculative future deliberations of sanctioned posts is legally unsustainable.

Rather than adjudicating the merits of each individual promotion at this stage, the Tribunal found that since a representation dated August 27, 2024, was already pending, the most appropriate legal course was to compel the administrative authority to exercise its discretion and provide a formal, reasoned response to the applicants' grievances.

It directed the competent authority among the respondents to decide the pending representation (Annexure A-2) by passing a "reasoned and speaking order".

The court ordered this decision to be taken within two months from the receipt of the certified copy of the order and communicated to the applicants immediately.

All associated Miscellaneous Applications were consequently disposed of with no order as to costs.