No legal right to notional promotion or revision of pension for unheld higher post.

The applicant, Dilip Kumar Goswami, joined the Department of Posts on 21.03.1974 and was subsequently promoted to Junior Accounts Officer on 22.01.1992, and then Accounts Officer on 15.03.2010.

He was regularly promoted to Senior Accounts Officer on 30.01.2013.

On 15.03.2013, the office of the Principal Controller of Communication Accounts (Pr. CCA), Kolkata, called for station choices, and the applicant opted for transfer to the office of the CCA, West Bengal Telecom Circle, Kolkata on 20.03.2013.

He submitted another representation seeking transfer on 24.09.2013.

The applicant superannuated as Senior Accounts Officer on 30.11.2013.

Later, on 28.12.2016, he sought re-fixation of his pay by treating him as having been promoted to Assistant Controller of Communication Accounts (ACCA), JTS Group ‘A’, from at least 01.11.2013, and consequential revision of pensionary benefits.

This representation was rejected by a speaking order dated 22.03.2018, which is now challenged.

The applicant contends he was senior to colleagues who retired with higher pay and pension after receiving local officiating promotion as ACCA in the West Bengal Circle and that his request for transfer, which would have allowed for such promotion, was not considered.

1. Whether the applicant had an enforceable right to be transferred to the office of CCA, West Bengal Telecom Circle, Kolkata?

2. Whether the applicant had an enforceable right to be granted local officiating promotion as ACCA?

3. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim notional promotion as ACCA and re-fixation of his pension and other retirement benefits?

4. Whether the delay in the applicant's regular promotion to Senior Accounts Officer resulted in financial loss or illegality?

5. Whether the speaking order dated 22.03.2018 violated principles of natural justice?

The court relied on the principle that transfer and posting are incidents of service within the employer's domain, subject to statutory rules and administrative policies, and calling for options does not confer an enforceable right to a particular posting.

It notably applied the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. R. Swaminathan, (1997) 7 SCC 690, which established that local officiating arrangements do not confer any right to claim parity in pay or stepping up of pay merely because a junior officiated in a higher post, and differences in pay arising from such arrangements do not constitute an anomaly requiring correction.

The court also noted that pension is calculated on the basis of the last substantive post held and the pay actually drawn, and no rule entitles an officer to claim pension of a higher post never held.

The court found that the applicant had no enforceable right to transfer to the West Bengal Telecom Circle, stating that transfer and posting are administrative decisions based on policy guidelines, administrative exigencies, and overall requirements.

The mere existence of a vacancy did not create a right to be posted there.

The applicant's claim for notional promotion as ACCA was based on a "hypothetical assumption" that he would have received local officiating promotion if transferred, which the court deemed a "speculative expectation" not equivalent to a legal entitlement.

Applying R. Swaminathan (supra), the court emphasized that local officiating promotions are temporary and made to meet short-term vacancies within a specific circle, not creating rights for officers in other circles.

Since the applicant never held the ACCA post or discharged its duties, his pension was correctly fixed based on his last substantive post of Senior Accounts Officer.

The court also dismissed the claim of delayed promotion to Senior Accounts Officer, stating that mere eligibility does not confer a right to promotion from an earlier date without a vacancy and completion of the prescribed process.

The plea of discrimination was rejected as the junior officer's higher pay and pension resulted from actual officiation in a different circle, which, per R. Swaminathan, is not considered arbitrary or violative of constitutional rights.

Finally, the speaking order was found to be reasoned and issued after considering the applicant's representation, thus not violating natural justice.

The significant delay in instituting the O.A. further weakened the claim.

It concluded that the applicant had no vested right to transfer to a particular circle or to local officiating promotion as ACCA, and therefore, was not entitled to notional promotion or revision of pensionary benefits for a post he never held.

The Original Application was, therefore, dismissed.

There was no order as to costs.