Grant of Non-Functional Selection Grade cannot be denied solely pending regularization of suspension period.

The applicant, an officer of the Indian Defence Estates Service (IDES), was promoted in-situ to the Junior Administrative Grade (JAG) notionally effective from 15.02.2010.

This promotion was subsequently modified on 28.01.2025 to include all consequential financial and service benefits.

The applicant sought the grant of Non-Functional Selection Grade (NFSG) effective from 01.04.2012, the date his immediate junior received said grade.

The respondents resisted the claim, contending that the applicant’s eligibility for NFSG was contingent upon the regularization of his suspension period under Fundamental Rule (FR) 54B(6).

At the time of this hearing, the Tribunal had already directed the respondents in a separate matter (O.A. No. 4262/2025) to decide the treatment of the suspension period within four weeks.

1. Whether the respondents can legally withhold the consideration of the applicant for grant of Non-Functional Selection Grade (NFSG) solely on the ground of pending regularization of his suspension period, despite having already granted him JAG promotion with consequential benefits.

Recruitment Rules of the Indian Defence Estates Service (IDES) regarding the eligibility criteria for NFSG.

Fundamental Rule (FR) 54B(6) regarding the regularization of suspension periods.

The principle of administrative consistency and the doctrine of consequential benefits, observing that since the applicant was already promoted to JAG w.e.f. 15.02.2010 with all service benefits despite the pending suspension issue, the same logic must extend to the consideration for NFSG.

The Tribunal noted that the respondents had modified the applicant’s JAG promotion order on 28.01.2025 to grant him full financial and service benefits effective from 2010.

The Bench reasoned that if the respondents were capable of granting a substantive promotion and consequential benefits while the suspension period remained unregularized, they could not validly use that same unregularized period as an absolute bar to merely considering the applicant for NFSG.

The Tribunal linked the timeline of this consideration to the resolution of the suspension issue, which was mandated to be addressed within four weeks as per its own order in the cross-referenced case O.A. No. 4262/2025.

The respondents were directed to consider and decide the applicant's claim for NFSG and convey said decision within four weeks from the date the decision regarding the treatment of his suspension period under FR 54(B) is reached.