Employee qualified for promotion despite retirement if delay due to administrative reasons.

The applicant, M. Anbalagan, a Retd. Travelling Ticket Inspector in Southern Railway, retired on superannuation on February 28, 2015.

Prior to his retirement, in January 2015, action was initiated to fill 24 vacancies for Chief Ticket Inspector (CTI) posts, including 7 anticipated vacancies up to June 30, 2015.

The applicant was found suitable for promotion to CTI and his name was included in a select list dated February 23, 2015, specifically at No.2 among three candidates for SC quota vacancies.

However, the promotion orders were issued only on March 18, 2015, and the applicant's name was excluded on the grounds that he had already retired on February 28, 2015.

The applicant’s junior, Mr. Saravanabhavan, who was at No.3 on the SC quota list, was promoted instead.

The respondents cited administrative reasons for the delay in issuing the promotion orders.

The applicant’s representation was rejected by an order dated April 1, 2016, leading to the current OA.

Whether the applicant, having been found suitable and included in the select list for promotion to Chief Ticket Inspector prior to his retirement, should have been promoted despite the promotion order being issued after his superannuation?

Whether the administrative delay in issuing promotion orders should prejudice an employee's right to promotion when a vacancy existed and he was deemed suitable before retirement?

The court primarily applied the principle that an employee, if found suitable and included in a select list for promotion, should not be denied such promotion due to administrative delays in issuing the promotion order, especially when vacancies existed and juniors were promoted.

The applicant relied on the judgment of the Hon. Apex Court in Maj Gen HM Singh, VSM v. Union of India and Anr. [Civil Appeal No.192/2014], which bestows an inalienable right on retired personnel within the zone of consideration and order of seniority for promotion against sanctioned cadre strength.

The court analyzed that the applicant was duly considered, short-listed, and found suitable for promotion to CTI, being placed at No.2 in the SC quota select list dated February 23, 2015.

A vacancy existed at the time of the select list's release, as evidenced by his junior being promoted to the SC quota position.

The only reason for denying the promotion was the administrative delay in issuing the promotion orders, which occurred after the applicant's superannuation on February 28, 2015.

The court found this administrative delay an insufficient ground to deny the applicant his promotion, applying the principle that if promotion orders were issued in time, the applicant would have been promoted.

The court underscored the applicant's "inalienable right" based on his inclusion in the select list and the existence of a vacancy before his retirement.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had made a case in his favour.

The respondent authorities are directed to promote the applicant before his date of superannuation, fix his basic pay accordingly, and subsequently his Pension Pay Order, granting him consequential benefits.

However, no arrears will be paid for his promotion, and this benefit will be pro tanto for the purpose of granting pensionary benefits.

This exercise must be completed within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.