Pendency of seniority litigation cannot absolve an employer from the obligation to conduct regular and timely DPCs.

The applicant, a Superintendent in the Department of Social Welfare, challenged an order dated 19.07.2022 that posted DANICS officers to the post of Senior Superintendent, seeking instead his own ad-hoc and subsequent regular promotion to said post.

The respondents initially contended that the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) could not be convened due to the pending finalization of Recruitment Rules (RRs).

Although the RRs were eventually notified on 16.05.2024 and the respondents claimed in December 2025 that a DPC had been constituted, no promotions were actually effected by the time of the final hearing in April 2026.

The applicant, currently holding the Senior Superintendent post on a "current duty charge," alleged grave prejudice due to the deprivation of regular service benefits and future prospects.

1. Whether the respondents were legally justified in continuing to delay the DPC despite the finalization and notification of the Recruitment Rules.

2. Whether the pendency of a separate legal challenge by a third party regarding the seniority list (OA No. 3346/2025) constitutes a valid ground for the respondents to defer the promotion process.

The Tribunal applied the doctrine of the "Model Employer," which mandates that the state and its instrumentalities conduct DPCs regularly and in a timely manner to ensure administrative efficiency, maintain employee morale, and prevent stagnation.

The court further emphasized that the administrative obligation to hold DPCs in accordance with law is not automatically suspended by the mere pendency of unrelated litigation, provided there is no specific legal bar.

The Tribunal observed that the primary impediment cited by the respondents—the non-finalization of Recruitment Rules—ceased to exist upon their notification on 16.05.2024.

The court noted a significant discrepancy between the respondents' earlier statement that a DPC had been constituted and the actual lack of progress toward effecting promotions.

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' defense that a third-party challenge to the seniority list (OA No. 3346/2025) justified the delay, holding that such pendency does not "absolve the respondents of their obligation to hold DPCs in accordance with law".

It concluded that the continued delay caused unjustifiable prejudice to the applicant, who was already performing the duties of the higher post without receiving the corresponding legal and financial benefits.

The court ordered that this process be completed within a period of four months.