Facts
The applicant, Sadhu Singh, joined the Department of Posts on October 12, 1988, and was promoted through various cadres, reaching HSG-I cadre on May 10, 2013.
Source reference: p.2He superannuated on September 30, 2020, from the post of Dy. Post Master.
Source reference: p.2A policy letter issued on May 27, 2016, restructured cadres and created the HSG-I (Non-Functional Grade) (NFG) with a Grade Pay of ₹4800/-.
Source reference: p.2A clarification dated November 10, 2017, specified that promotions to HSG-I (NFG) would be effective from May 27, 2016, and applicable even to eligible retired officials.
Source reference: p.2The applicant completed the requisite two years in HSG-I on May 10, 2015, making him eligible for promotion from May 27, 2016.
Source reference: p.2Despite recommendations in 2019 and 2020, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was not convened in time, eventually taking place on November 27, 2020, after the applicant's retirement.
Source reference: p.2, p.3His name was excluded from the promotion order dated December 8, 2020.
Source reference: p.3His representations were rejected on August 12, 2021, on the grounds that promotion could not be granted retrospectively after retirement.
Source reference: p.3The respondents contended that a Directorate letter dated December 5, 2018, modified the clarification, stipulating that promotions would take effect only from the date the official assumes charge.
Source reference: p.3They also cited a status quo on promotion from June 24, 2019, to August 10, 2020, which delayed the DPC.
Source reference: p.3Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated August 12, 2021, rejecting the applicant's claim for promotion to HSG-I (NFG) after retirement, is void and legally unsustainable?
Source reference: p.22. Whether the applicant is entitled to notional promotion to HSG-I (NFG) and consequential retiral benefits from the due date of May 27, 2016, despite having retired before the DPC was convened?
Source reference: p.2, p.4Law Applied
The court primarily applied the principle that an employee cannot be denied promotion and consequential pensionary benefits due to administrative inaction or delay in convening the DPC, particularly when the employee met the eligibility criteria.
Source reference: p.4, para. 12It relied on the judgment in *Hari Dev v. Union of India, OA No. 603/2021 decided on 17.04.2025*, which similarly addressed delayed DPC and retrospective benefits for retirees in the same department.
Source reference: p.4Further, the court cited *Bhag Mall v. State of Punjab and Others (CWP No. 14124/2018 decided on 24.04.2024)*, emphasizing that the State must act reasonably and fairly, and an employee cannot be disadvantaged by the department's "lackadaisical approach".
Source reference: p.4, p.6, para. 12The Tribunal also referenced the Department of Personnel and Training Office Memorandum dated November 14, 2014, which provides for the consideration of retired employees who were within the zone of consideration but not in service when the DPC is held.
Source reference: p.5, p.6, para. 13Reasoning
The Tribunal found that the applicant was admittedly eligible for promotion to HSG-I (NFG) from May 27, 2016, having completed the requisite service.
Source reference: p.2, p.4, para. 4, p.8, para. 6The delay in holding the DPC was solely attributable to the respondents' administrative decisions, including the imposition and lifting of a status quo.
Source reference: p.3, p.8, para. 6Applying the precedent from *Hari Dev v. Union of India* and *Bhag Mall v. State of Punjab and Others*, the Tribunal reasoned that an employee cannot be penalized for the department's failure to convene the DPC on time.
Source reference: p.4, p.6, para. 12The respondents' contention that promotion takes effect only from assuming charge was disregarded because the DoP&T's O.M. dated November 14, 2014, allowed for consideration of retired employees for notional promotion.
Source reference: p.3, p.7, para. 16The Tribunal also noted that other circles (U.P. and H.P.) of the same department had granted retrospective promotion to similarly situated retirees, reinforcing the applicant's claim of unequal treatment.
Source reference: p.3, p.4, p.7, para. 15, p.8, para. 7The case cited by the respondents, *Government of West Bengal and Others Vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi and Others*, was distinguished because the DoP&T memo provided an enabling clause, and the HSG-I (NFG) was a non-functional grade without higher responsibilities, unlike the case relied upon by the respondents.
Source reference: p.7, para. 16Holding
The Original Application was allowed.
The Tribunal quashed and set aside the impugned order dated August 12, 2021, as illegal.
Source reference: p.9, para. 9The respondents were directed to grant the applicant notional promotion to HSG-I (NFG) from the due date of May 27, 2016, and to release all consequential retiral benefits, including refixation of pension and revision of PPO, within two months from the receipt of the order.
Source reference: p.8, p.9, para. 8, para. 9No costs were ordered.
Source reference: p.9, para. 9Original Court PDF
Sadhu Singh v. Union of India (Original Application No. 060/1023/2021)
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in