J&K CAT Restores Two Revenue Employees’ DPC-Backed 2006 And 2013 Promotions, Quashing Retrospective Reversal Made Without Hearing Them.

The applicants had been promoted as Head Assistants with effect from 14 June 2006 on the recommendation of a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), and their promotion was reflected in the department’s 2012 seniority list.

In 2018, following a further DPC recommendation and withdrawal of their pending writ petition, they were promoted as Section Officers with effect from 7 March 2013.

In 2023, the respondents withdrew those promotion dates, stating that the applicants had not passed the Secretariat Assistant Examination and had not attained age 50 at the relevant time.

The order was made without notice or hearing to the applicants.

The applicants challenged that order under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985; its operation was stayed during the proceedings.

The Tribunal recognised that statutory recruitment rules cannot be overridden by an administrative order and that an employee cannot claim a benefit contrary to the governing rules merely because an earlier order granted it.

The applicants relied on Rules 5, 7 and 11 of the Jammu & Kashmir Revenue (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1973, including Rule 7 concerning the departmental examination during probation; the respondents relied on SRO 471 of 1973 and SRO 272 of 2008 in support of the eligibility requirements they invoked.

The Tribunal also applied the principles of natural justice, requiring a hearing before an adverse decision affects service rights, and the principles of fairness and certainty in service matters.

It considered the absence of fraud or misrepresentation, the employees’ performance of duties in the higher posts, and the fact that payments had been made under formal departmental orders relevant to protection against recovery.

The promotions had been recommended and approved by DPCs, entered in official seniority records, and acted upon by the department over several years; the applicants had not obtained them through fraud or misrepresentation.

Because the respondents reopened those decisions and altered the applicants’ service position without notice or hearing, the impugned order violated natural justice.

The Tribunal further considered that the department had not explained its earlier approvals or its recommendation of the Section Officer promotions, and that the applicants had withdrawn their writ petition in reliance on that recommendation.

In light of the formal orders, actual service in the higher posts, and absence of employee misconduct, recovery would be inequitable.

The applicants’ promotions as Head Assistants from 14 June 2006 and Section Officers from 7 March 2013 were restored, and the respondents were directed to maintain their service and seniority positions and work out consequential benefits in accordance with law.

Any amount already recovered under the impugned order was directed to be refunded within three months of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.