Pendency of criminal proceedings does not justify denying temporary in-charge status where similarly situated juniors are granted such benefits.

The applicant, a Girdawar in the Revenue Department, qualified the departmental examination for promotion to Naib-Tehsildar in 2016

While his juniors were promoted as "Incharge Naib-Tehsildars" in 2017, the applicant's case was deferred due to the pendency of FIR No. 20/2011 involving allegations of fraudulent mutation

Despite a 2017 High Court direction to consider his case under the Jankiraman principles, the respondents issued Order No. FC(A) 54 of 2019, merely directing him to "look after" the work of a vacant Niabat in his own pay and grade without providing the status or benefits of an "Incharge"

The respondents contended that the DPC meeting held on 20.07.2020 kept his result in a "sealed cover" because prosecution sanction had been accorded in the criminal case on 04.06.2020

1. Whether the respondents were justified in denying the applicant "Incharge" status and benefits—granted to his juniors—solely based on the pendency of a criminal case, while simultaneously requiring him to perform the duties of the higher post

2. Whether the "sealed cover" procedure for substantive promotion precludes an employee from receiving parity in temporary/interim administrative arrangements

The Tribunal applied the principles established in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman (1991) 4 SCC 109, which dictate that the sealed cover procedure is only applicable once a charge-sheet has been issued in disciplinary proceedings or a challan filed in a criminal court

The Tribunal also relied on the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 16 regarding parity in service and the right to be considered for promotion

It distinguished between "substantive promotion," which is subject to the outcome of litigation, and "temporary/incharge arrangements," which should not be withheld arbitrarily if juniors are similarly benefited

The Tribunal found that while substantive promotion could be placed in a sealed cover due to the filing of the challan and pending trial, the respondents acted arbitrarily by denying the applicant "Incharge" status

The court noted an "anomalous situation" where the applicant performed the duties of a Naib-Tehsildar but was denied the status and pay granted to juniors

It reasoned that since the department had a practice of promoting others "subject to the outcome" of investigations, the applicant could not be singled out

The Tribunal emphasized that "incharge" arrangements do not confer vested rights and thus do not prejudice the state, whereas denying them causes "serious and difficult to undo" loss to the employee if eventually exonerated

Since the respondents themselves deemed him fit to "look after" the post, the denial of the corresponding title and pay was held to be inequitable

It directed the respondents to treat the applicant as "Incharge Naib Tehsildar" with consequential benefits from the date he began looking after the post or from the date his junior was placed in that position, whichever is later

This benefit is strictly subject to the final outcome of FIR No. 20/2011 and departmental actions

Regarding substantive promotion, the Tribunal held that the DPC shall follow the sealed cover procedure, and the applicant shall only be regularized if acquitted or exonerated

The respondents were ordered to complete this exercise within three months