Post-merger seniority entitles a senior employee to promotion parity with an already-promoted junior.

The applicant, a retired Postmaster, had opted for the Postmaster cadre when it was separated from the General Line.

After the cadres were merged in 2019, he was granted notional promotion to HSG-I from 9 June 2015, while his junior, Smt. L. Lalitha, had received HSG-I (NFG) from 1 June 2019.

The applicant retired on 31 July 2020, before 23 HSG-I (NFG) posts were temporarily redeployed to Karnataka Circle on 5 August 2020.

In an earlier application, the Tribunal set aside the rejection of his claim and directed the respondents to reconsider it in light of that redeployment; that order was not challenged.

The respondents’ subsequent order dated 22 May 2024 again denied the claim, leading to this application.

Whether the respondents’ order dated 22 May 2024 complied with the Tribunal’s earlier direction to reconsider the applicant’s claim in light of the redeployment of HSG-I (NFG) posts.

Whether the 2019 merger and the applicant’s seniority relative to his junior entitled him to consideration for HSG-I (NFG) from the date his junior was promoted, notwithstanding the applicant’s retirement before the posts were redeployed.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 provided the basis for the application.

The Tribunal considered FR 22 and Note 10 below Rule 7 of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016, which permit stepping up of a senior employee’s pay to that of a junior where the prescribed conditions for pay anomaly are met.

It also applied the Department of Posts’ 10 July 2019 merger order and 26 July 2019 merger guidelines: paragraph 6 of the guidelines allows an official to be considered for promotion where a junior in the post-merger seniority has been promoted, subject to eligibility; the guidelines ordinarily provide for notional promotion without pay consequences until assumption of charge.

Relying on Union of India v. K.B. Rajoria, Civil Appeal No. 2272/2000, decided 28 March 2000, the Tribunal treated the period from the junior’s promotion as capable of counting towards the senior’s qualifying service where the senior’s notional promotion corrected an earlier disadvantage.

It further invoked Article 14 to reject differential treatment based solely on whether an official retired before or after the administrative redeployment of posts.

The Tribunal held that the 2024 order did not give effect to the earlier remand, which had identified administrative delay in redeploying posts as the reason the applicant’s claim was not considered before retirement.

The merger restored the applicant’s seniority relative to Smt. Lalitha, and the merger guidelines contemplated consideration for promotion where a junior had already been promoted.

The Tribunal found that the Department could not rely on the delay in redeployment or the applicant’s retirement to defeat parity, particularly because it considered HSG-I and HSG-I (NFG) to involve no functional distinction and noted that in-situ upgradation was an available practice.

It therefore rejected the respondents’ reliance on separate pre-merger cadres and post availability, and found that denying relief to employees who retired before redeployment, while granting it to otherwise similarly situated employees, was arbitrary.

It directed the respondents to reconsider the applicant’s promotion to HSG-I (NFG) notionally from 1 June 2019, the date his junior was promoted, with consequential notional pay fixation.

It further directed actual revision of emoluments and financial benefits from 10 July 2019, including revision of pensionary benefits.

The order was to be implemented within 12 weeks; arrears would carry interest at 8% per annum from the date of default until payment.