Notional promotion cannot be withdrawn without natural justice and scrutiny of applicable judicial protections.

The applicants, Inspectors promoted as Superintendents, were granted notional promotion with effect from 1 January 2021 by Establishment Order No. 04/2024 dated 12 January 2024.

Following a review DPC, the respondents issued Establishment Order No. 72/2025 dated 10 August 2025, with a corrigendum dated 11 August 2025, changing their promotion dates to 12 January 2024.

The applicants challenged that change, contending that delays in convening DPCs for the relevant vacancy years were administrative and that the revised dates harmed their seniority and service benefits.

The respondents attributed the DPC delay to litigation and interim orders concerning the Inspectors’ seniority list, and relied on the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 10 April 1989.

The Tribunal noted that a similar challenge to the same Establishment Order had been decided in OA No. 3615/2025 on 17 February 2026.

Whether the respondents could withdraw the applicants’ earlier notional promotion and substitute a later promotion date without adequately considering the resulting prejudice and the principles of natural justice.

Whether the applicants were entitled to restoration of notional promotion from 1 January 2021, subject to verification that they were protected by the High Court’s order and were otherwise similarly situated to the applicants in OA No. 3615/2025.

The Tribunal stated that eligibility for promotion or the existence of a vacancy does not, by itself, confer an indefeasible right to promotion; however, retrospective notional promotion must be assessed in light of the circumstances causing delay in convening a DPC and any resulting prejudice to the employee.

It referred to P.N. Premachandran v. State of Kerala, K. Madhavan v. Union of India, Union of India v. N.R. Banerjee and Union of India v. Vipinchandra Hiralal Shah for the importance of timely consideration and year-wise panels under applicable rules.

The respondents relied on paragraph 6.4.4 of the DoPT O.M. dated 10 April 1989, concerning prospective promotions in the order of a consolidated select list, and on Union of India v. K.K. Vadera for the proposition that eligibility or vacancies alone do not create a right to retrospective promotion.

The Tribunal also relied on its decision in OA No. 3615/2025 and the High Court’s order dated 15 February 2024 in WP(C) No. 1668/2024, which had protected a specified category of officers.

The Tribunal accepted that litigation and judicial restraints had prevented DPCs for the relevant years, and that the applicants’ earlier notional promotion had subsequently been withdrawn.

It held that the respondents could not justify the change solely by invoking the prospective effect of promotions under the DoPT O.M.; they also had to consider the circumstances of the earlier grant, the effect on seniority and other service benefits, and any applicable legal protection.

Because the applicants’ entitlement depended on whether they fell within the category protected by the High Court’s order and were materially similarly situated to the applicants in OA No. 3615/2025, the Tribunal made relief subject to verification from their service records.

It directed the respondents to restore the notional promotion granted under Establishment Order No. 04/2024 for seniority and consequential service benefits, in accordance with applicable rules and OA No. 3615/2025, within three months.

Financial arrears were left to the applicable rules and the principle of “no work, no pay,” unless otherwise specifically provided.

The OA was allowed on those terms, with no order as to costs.