Failure to revert to parent cadre for promotion extinguishes entitlement to notional promotion and consequential benefits.

The applicant joined as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in 1987 under the respondents and was promoted to Upper Division Clerk (UDC) in 1994

On 01.06.2007, he proceeded on deputation to the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC)

While on deputation, the parent department issued an order on 26.05.2011 promoting him to the post of Head Clerk; however, this order required him to report back to his service department to assume charge

The applicant did not revert to his parent cadre; instead, he sought and obtained permanent absorption in the CERC effective from 31.05.2012

Following his absorption, the applicant requested notional pay refixation for the post of Head Clerk from 11.07.2011 and sought consequential pensionary benefits, citing a retrospective revision of grade pay for that post

Whether an employee on deputation who is granted a promotion in his parent cadre but fails to revert to assume charge, opting instead for permanent absorption in the borrowing organization, is entitled to notional or proforma promotion and consequential pay fixation

Department of Personnel Administrative Reforms O.M. No. 22011/3/76-Estt.(D) dated 22.12.1980 and O.M. No. 22011/6/75-Estt.(D) dated 30.12.1976

These rules stipulate that an officer who joins an ex-cadre post on their own volition must revert to the parent cadre when due for promotion; failure to revert results in the removal of their name from the promotion panel and forfeiture of the claim to the higher grade

The "Next Below Rule" for proforma promotion applies only when an employee is prevented from assuming charge for reasons not attributable to them

The Tribunal noted that while an employee on deputation retains a lien and eligibility for promotion, such entitlement is governed by statutory instructions

The court found that the applicant’s failure to assume the charge of Head Clerk was a direct result of his own choice to remain at CERC and seek permanent absorption

Because this decision was made of his "own volition," the applicant fell under the restrictive clauses of the 1976 and 1980 O.M.s, leading to the extinguishment of any rights flowing from the promotion panel

The Tribunal further reasoned that proforma promotion was inapplicable because the applicant was not "prevented" by the administration from joining the promoted post; rather, he chose not to report back

Consequently, without a legally enforceable promotion, his claims for pay refixation and enhanced pensionary benefits—which were merely consequential—could not be sustained

The court ruled that the respondents correctly regulated his retiral benefits based on the substantive post he actually held before absorption

No costs were awarded