Court-protected promotions attain finality and cannot be unsettled by retrospective administrative reinterpretations.

The applicant, Aparna Sahu, is the wife of late Mukesh Kumar, who was promoted to Inspector with effect from December 6, 2002, following a Review DPC in compliance with judicial directions from the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

This promotion was subsequently protected by the Supreme Court's order dated February 5, 2020, in Civil Appeals arising from SLP (C) Nos. 1970–1975 of 2009.

Despite this, the respondents allegedly unsettled his service benefits by issuing clarifications on February 7, 2018, and July 14, 2021, which excluded notional service for MACP purposes, issued demotion/re-fixation orders without prior notice, and denied him the 3rd MACP and consequential financial benefits.

Additionally, he was not granted Non-Functional Upgradation/Non-Functional Selection Grade (NFU/NFSG) of ₹5400/- in PB-2 with effect from December 6, 2016, after completing four years in Grade Pay ₹4800/-.

These actions led to a reduction in family pension and the withholding/curtailment of gratuity after his death on April 19, 2021.

The re-fixation also affected the applicant's husband's promotion year, seniority, and accrued service benefits.

The respondents' counsel contended that the promotion was notional, and thus, notional service could not be treated as "regular service" for MACP purposes.

They also argued that the clarifications merely reiterated settled positions, re-fixations were in accordance with rules, and audit objections justified recoveries.

1. Whether the impugned circular letters dated February 13, 2025, and June 12, 2025, should be declared null and void and quashed.

2. Whether the promotion given to the applicant’s husband with effect from December 6, 2002, which attained finality by way of judicial protection, can be disturbed, and whether he is eligible for all consequential benefits.

3. Whether the applicant's husband is affected by the provisions of the MACP Scheme referred to in the impugned letters/orders dated February 7, 2018, and July 14, 2021.

4. Whether the applicant's husband is eligible for the grant of Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) of ₹5400/- in PB-2 with effect from December 6, 2016, after completion of 4 years of regular service in the grade pay of ₹4800/-.

5. Whether the respondents should be directed to pay/refund all recovered amounts to the applicant after her husband's death with interest.

The Tribunal applied the principle of judicial finality and the protection of settled promotions as established by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 1970–1975 of 2009 and reiterated in *D. Raghu*.

It relied on the precedent set by its Principal Bench in OA No. 2356/2025 (*Deepak Kumar Srivastava & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.*), which held that promotions made against vacancies existing prior to December 7, 2002, and acted upon for a long period, cannot be reopened or unsettled by executive circulars.

The Tribunal also referred to the Madras High Court's decision in *M. Subramaniam v. Union of India*, upheld by the Supreme Court, concerning the grant of Non-Functional Grade (NFG) Pay Scale of ₹9300-34800/- in Pay Band-II with Grade Pay of ₹5400/- after completing four years of regular service in Grade Pay of ₹4800/-.

It noted that this judgment is *in rem* and not *in personam*.

The Tribunal also emphasized adherence to principles of natural justice and Article 311(2) of the Constitution regarding demotion and financial recoveries.

The Tribunal found that the core issue was indistinguishable from *Deepak Kumar Srivastava*.

In that case, the Principal Bench had ruled that promotions made effective December 6, 2002, against pre-December 7, 2002 vacancies, which had attained finality and been acted upon for over a decade, could not be unsettled by subsequent executive clarifications or reinterpretation of vacancy positions.

The Supreme Court's protection of these promotions in Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 1970–1975 of 2009 further solidified their status.

The Tribunal held that since the applicant's husband's promotion was judicially protected and legally valid, the period of service rendered under it could not be excluded for MACP or further financial upgradation.

The impugned circulars dated February 13, 2025, and June 12, 2025, which attempted to retrospectively declare vacancies non-existent and disturb settled promotions, were found to be unsustainable, echoing the *Deepak Kumar Srivastava* ruling which had quashed similar instructions and held that administrative reinterpretation cannot override judicial finality.

The Tribunal also noted that any change in the year of promotion after 15-20 years constitutes a constructive reversion and is impermissible.

Regarding the NFU/NFSG claim, the Tribunal cited *M. Subramaniam v. Union of India*, a judgment upheld by the Apex Court and explicitly stated to be *in rem*, confirming entitlement to the Grade Pay of ₹5400/- after four years of regular service in Grade Pay ₹4800/-.

The respondents' failure to file a Counter Affidavit despite multiple opportunities underscored the strength of the applicant's claims.

It quashed and set aside the impugned circulars dated February 13, 2025, and June 12, 2025, insofar as they affected the applicant.

The Tribunal directed that the applicant's husband's promotion to the post of Inspector with effect from December 6, 2002, shall stand protected, and no adverse action, including reversion, alteration of promotion year, disturbance of seniority, or denial of consequential benefits, should be taken based on the impugned circulars.

The respondents were directed to ensure that all future exercises of seniority fixation or DPC proceedings are carried out without reopening or disturbing settled promotions made against vacancies treated as existing prior to December 7, 2002.

The Task Force Report was also quashed to the extent it contradicted judicially settled positions.

Furthermore, the respondents were directed to grant the benefit of Non-Functional Selection Grade (NFSG) Pay Scale of ₹9300-34800 in Pay Band-II with Grade Pay of ₹5400/- to the applicant's husband from the date he completed four years of regular service in the Grade Pay of ₹4800/-.

Consequently, the respondents were ordered to re-fix the pay of late Mukesh Kumar notionally for all consequential purposes, re-calculate retiral dues including DCRG and family pension, and refund any amount recovered on account of revision of pay or withdrawal of MACP benefits to the applicant.

The differential amount must be paid within four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

The claim for interest @ 18% per annum was declined.