Employees completing the requisite residency period are entitled to antedated promotion from the date their juniors were promoted.

The applicant, initially appointed as Scientific Assistant ‘A’ on 28 July 1994, was promoted as Scientific Assistant ‘B’ in 1998, Scientific Officer in 2005, and Scientist ‘B’, Level 9, with effect from 4 August 2011.

He was subsequently promoted as Scientist ‘C’ in 2018, but sought antedating of that promotion on the ground that he had become eligible earlier under the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology’s personnel policies.

The applicant claimed eligibility from 1 October 2014 under the “Below Group ‘A’” policy, or alternatively from 1 January 2015 under the Group ‘A’ policy.

He relied particularly on the fact that seven juniors had received retrospective promotion to Scientist ‘C’ with effect from 1 January 2016.

His claim was rejected by letter dated 4 August 2021 on the ground that his M.Sc. (IT) qualification was recorded in the service records only on 29 April 2016 and that he had not fulfilled the requisite qualification and residency requirements earlier.

The applicant challenged the rejection before the Tribunal.

Whether the applicant was entitled to antedated promotion to Scientist ‘C’ from the date on which he allegedly acquired eligibility under the applicable MeitY personnel policy, rather than from the date of his actual promotion in 2018.

Whether the respondents’ reliance on the applicant’s M.Sc. (IT) qualification being recorded only on 29 April 2016 validly justified denial of retrospective promotion.

Whether the applicant was entitled to parity with his juniors who were granted retrospective promotion to Scientist ‘C’ with effect from 1 January 2016.

The Tribunal applied the MeitY personnel policies governing promotion of scientific and technical officers, including the policy for below Group ‘A’ officers and the Group ‘A’ S&T Personnel Policy notified by Office Memorandum dated 19 September 2016.

The applicable principle was that promotion under the relevant time-bound or in-situ scheme should follow the officer’s satisfaction of the prescribed qualification and residency requirements, and should not be delayed because of administrative inaction.

The Tribunal relied on the principles reflected in Dr. Anjum N. Rizvi v. Union of India, Dr. Parveen Arora v. Union of India, Dr. V.S. Rao Chintala v. Union of India, and Dr. A. Duraisamy v. Union of India, which recognised entitlement to antedated promotion from the date of eligibility where the administration had delayed consideration.

It also referred to Union of India v. S.K. Murti, where the Supreme Court affirmed that scientific and technical employees should not suffer delayed promotional benefits because of administrative failure to convene assessment proceedings in time.

The Tribunal found that the respondents’ explanation did not satisfactorily justify the applicant’s delayed promotion.

Although the respondents relied on the applicant’s qualification being recorded in 2016, the Tribunal held that he had completed the requisite residency period and was otherwise entitled to consideration for promotion.

The Tribunal treated the delayed consideration by the respondents, coupled with the retrospective promotion granted to the applicant’s juniors from 1 January 2016, as sufficient to establish that the applicant had been prejudiced by administrative delay.

Applying the principle that an eligible scientific officer should not lose promotional benefits due to delayed departmental action, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant was entitled to promotion from the date on which his juniors had received the benefit, namely 1 January 2016.

It directed the respondents to grant the applicant antedated promotion to the post of Scientist ‘C’ with effect from 1 January 2016, along with all consequential benefits, within four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

No order as to costs was made.