Notional promotion must be granted from the date of vacancy when DPC delays result from administrative lapses.

The four applicants were serving as Highly Skilled Grade I (MCM Elect/Carpenter) in the Military Engineering Service (MES), Shillong

Under a 2010 Ministry of Defence restructuring order, 25% of Highly Skilled employees were to be placed in the Master Craftsman (MCM) grade w.e.f. 01.01.2006

The applicants became eligible for promotion to the MCM grade (Grade Pay Rs. 4200) during the recruitment year 2013-14, when vacancies were available

However, the respondents failed to conduct Departmental Promotion Committees (DPCs) for the years 2013-14 through 2016-17

Promotions were eventually granted via orders dated 18.07.2019 and 19.08.2019, but only on a prospective basis from the date of assumption of charge

The applicants challenged the rejection of their claim for retrospective promotion (ante-dating) via a letter dated 23.09.2019

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to ante-dated promotion to the grade of Master Craftsman from the date of occurrence of vacancies in the 2013-14 vacancy year

2. Whether the delay in holding DPCs due to administrative reasons or pending litigation in unrelated cases can justify denying retrospective notional promotion to eligible employees

The Tribunal applied the principle that employees must not suffer due to administrative lapses or delays in convening DPCs

It relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in P.N. Premachandran v. Union of India and Ors., which held that retrospective promotion is mandatory when delays are attributable to administrative failure

The court further cited Union of India v. Hemraj Singh Chouhan (2010) 4 SCC 290 and Major General H.M. Singh v. Union of India (2014) 3 SCC 670, establishing that while there is no absolute right to promotion, there is a fundamental right to be considered for promotion in a timely manner according to the rules

It also referenced DoPT O.M. No. 22011/5/86-Estt.(D) dated 10.04.1989 regarding the mandatory schedule for DPCs

The Tribunal found it undisputed that the applicants were fully eligible for promotion in the 2013-14 vacancy year and that vacancies existed at that time

The respondents argued that the DPC was delayed until 2019 due to an interim stay in an unrelated case (B.C. Boro v. GE Shillong)

However, the Tribunal held that such delays are attributable to the respondents and constitute administrative lapses

The Tribunal reasoned that since the applicants were qualified and the vacancies were available, the failure to hold a DPC during the relevant period should not result in a loss of seniority or financial benefits for the employees

Consequently, the court determined that the law necessitates granting notional promotion from the date the vacancy originally arose to rectify the administrative delay

It directed the respondents to grant the applicants notional promotion to the MCM grade from the date vacancies arose in the 2013-14 vacancy year

The court further ordered the respondents to provide all consequential benefits, including seniority and pay adjustments, within three months of the order

No costs were awarded