Existing feeder-cadre incumbents retain prior qualifying service when amended rules enhance promotional eligibility.

The 254 applicants were serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department in the feeder cadres of Auditor/Accountant.

Under the pre-amendment Recruitment Rules, three years of regular service, along with other prescribed conditions such as passing the departmental examination wherever applicable, made them eligible for consideration for promotion to Senior Auditor/Senior Accountant.

By the Recruitment Rules notified on 27.09.2023, the qualifying service was enhanced from three to six years, without incorporating a protection or saving clause for employees already holding feeder-grade posts.

Their representation was rejected by Order No. 649-Staff (App-I) 22-2023 dated 28.11.2024, which they challenged before the Tribunal.

The respondents’ counter-affidavit was not on record despite directions, and the Tribunal proceeded in its absence.

Whether the enhancement of qualifying service for promotion from three years to six years under the Recruitment Rules notified on 27.09.2023, without a protection clause for existing Auditor/Accountant incumbents, was arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to the applicable DoPT instructions.

Whether the applicants were entitled to retention of the earlier three-year eligibility service and consideration for promotion under the DoPT O.M.s dated 31.12.2010 and 20.09.2022.

Whether the rejection of the applicants’ representation by order dated 28.11.2024 was liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It applied Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution against arbitrary or discriminatory treatment in matters of public employment, together with the doctrines of legitimate expectation and protection against adverse retrospective operation of service-rule amendments.

The Tribunal relied on DoPT O.M. No. AB-14017/12/88-Estt. (RR) dated 25.03.1996, incorporated in the revised guidelines through O.M. No. AB-14017/48/2010-Estt. (RR) dated 31.12.2010, which provides that where qualifying service is enhanced and the change adversely affects persons already holding feeder posts on a regular basis, the revised Rules may retain the existing eligibility service for those incumbents.

It also applied paragraph 6 of DoPT O.M. F. No. AB-14017/4/2021-Estt. (RR) dated 20.09.2022, which states that suitable protection clauses may be incorporated where enhancement of qualifying service is likely to affect the promotion of existing feeder-grade incumbents.

The Tribunal further followed the Coordinate Bench’s decision in Rajesh Kumar & Ors. v. ESIC & Ors., O.A. No. 1472/2024, decided on 13.02.2026, which directed protection of an existing promotional avenue where amended Regulations adversely affected employees who were already in service.

The Tribunal found that the applicants had entered and served in the feeder cadre under a regime prescribing three years of qualifying service, whereas the 2023 Rules retrospectively prejudiced their promotional prospects by requiring six years, without safeguarding their accrued or existing eligibility.

Although the amendment could operate prospectively, its application to existing incumbents adversely affected employees who had completed, or were nearing completion of, the earlier qualifying period.

In the Tribunal’s view, this was inconsistent with the DoPT policy requiring consideration of a protection clause in precisely such circumstances.

The absence of a counter-affidavit meant that the respondents did not substantiate any administrative justification for omitting the protection clause.

Relying on the DoPT instructions, the doctrines of legitimate expectation and non-arbitrariness, and the Coordinate Bench’s decision in Rajesh Kumar, the Tribunal concluded that the respondents’ action was discriminatory, arbitrary, mala fide and illegal.

The respondents were directed to grant the applicants relaxation by retaining the earlier eligibility position and to consider them for promotion to Senior Auditor/Senior Accountant, with notional consequential benefits in accordance with law.

The exercise was to be completed within four months from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

Pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.