Lower courts cannot bar their judgments from being cited as precedent, Delhi High Court says

The respondent, a Scientist in the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MOEFCC), received in-situ promotion to Scientist C under the Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS) from 2 July 2007 and retired on 30 June 2013.

He sought ante-dating of that promotion to 1 January 2006 and consideration for promotion to Scientist D from 1 January 2010.

The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed his application, directing ante-dating to Scientist C and issuance of orders concerning Scientist D, with consequential benefits.

The Union of India challenged that decision, arguing that retrospective promotion was barred and that the respondent had not undergone the required assessment for Scientist D.

Whether the respondent’s in-situ promotion to Scientist C could be ante-dated to 1 January 2006 despite the prohibition on retrospective promotion under the applicable rules and instructions.

Whether the respondent could be considered for in-situ promotion to Scientist D from 1 January 2010 after retirement, despite not having undergone the prescribed assessment and interview.

The FCS, as governed by the DOPT Office Memorandum dated 9 November 1998, requires merit-based assessment, including scrutiny of Annual Confidential Reports and interview, for in-situ promotion.

The DOPT Office Memorandum dated 17 July 2002 directs that assessments be held regularly and states that promotions ordinarily take effect prospectively; however, an authority cannot rely on its own failure to conduct timely assessments to defeat an employee’s entitlement.

In Union of India v. S.K. Murti, the Supreme Court upheld ante-dating an FCS promotion to the date of eligibility where administrative delay caused the assessment to be held late.

In Nakul Dev v. Union of India, the Tribunal’s direction for a retired employee’s review assessment without interview was upheld; the High Court considered that approach applicable to the exceptional circumstances before it.

The relevant recruitment rules prohibit retrospective promotion, but that prohibition does not permit the administration to benefit from its own default in timely consideration.

The respondent had already been assessed and promoted to Scientist C; the issue was the effective date of that promotion.

Applying S.K. Murti and Nakul Dev, the Court held that the delay in considering him could not deprive him of the benefit from the date of eligibility, and upheld ante-dating to 1 January 2006.

The Scientist D claim was different: the respondent had never been assessed for that grade, so automatic promotion would bypass the FCS’s merit-based requirements.

However, the MOEFCC’s delay had caused his retirement before consideration could take place.

Following the approach in Nakul Dev, the Court held that he should be considered under the FCS parameters, with the interview dispensed with because it was no longer possible to conduct one.

The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.