Employees must be considered for promotion under rules existing when the vacancy arose despite subsequent administrative restructuring.

The applicant, a Medical Assistant at the Ordnance Equipment Factory (OEF) Kanpur since 2005, was directed on 11.05.2020 by the Chief Medical Officer to take over the charge of Ward Master due to a vacancy arising from retirement on 30.06.2020

Despite officiating in the role and possessing the requisite four years of service required by SRO-36 and SRO-88, no formal promotion order was issued by the General Manager

On 01.10.2021, the Ordnance Factory Board was corporatized, and administrative control shifted to the Directorate of Ordnance (Coordination & Services), Kolkata

The respondents rejected her representation on 04.07.2024, claiming that post-corporatization, promotions are based on a combined seniority list rather than unit-wise seniority

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to retrospective promotion to the post of Ward Master from the date the vacancy arose (01.07.2020) based on rules existing prior to corporatization

2. Whether the administrative delay in formalizing the promotion justifies the denial of benefits despite the applicant performing the duties of the higher post

The court primarily considered the principles governing service rights and "deemed deputation" following corporatization under the Office Memorandum dated 24.09.2021

It applied the principle that vacancies should generally be filled according to the rules in force when the vacancy arose, citing precedents such as Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao and P. Mahendran v. State of Karnataka

The court also relied on Fundamental Rule (FR) 49, which mandates that if an officer is required to discharge full duties of another post, the competent authority must take steps to issue formal appointment orders and provide additional remuneration

The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s eligibility and her continuous officiating as Ward Master since May 2020 were not denied by the respondents

It observed that while the General Manager was the erstwhile competent authority, the failure to issue a formal order was an administrative lapse

The Tribunal highlighted that under FR 49, the administration has a duty to regularize the charge of an officer performing higher duties

Regarding the shift to a "combined seniority list" post-corporatization, the Tribunal noted that the 24.09.2021 OM preserved existing service conditions during the "deemed deputation" period

Therefore, the applicant should not suffer for more than five years of officiating in a higher capacity without a formal decision on her promotion status

It held that since the applicant has been holding the charge for over five years, it is essential that her promotion status be decided expeditiously. The respondents are ordered to complete this consideration within a period of six months. No order as to costs was made