Prolonged ad-hoc arrangements without regular promotion are arbitrary, necessitating retrospective regularization of eligible employees.

The nine applicants were initially appointed as Junior Engineers in the Power Development Department (PDD) of Jammu & Kashmir between 1988 and 1993.

Over several years, they were placed on an "in-charge" basis for higher posts—Assistant Engineer (AE), Assistant Executive Engineer (AEE), and Executive Engineer (EE)—in their own pay and grade with only a charge allowance.

Despite fulfilling eligibility criteria, including vigilance clearance and satisfactory Annual Performance Reports, the respondents failed to convene Departmental Promotion Committees (DPCs) for regular promotion for over a decade.

The respondents contended that the delay was due to administrative hurdles, seniority disputes, and litigation, but noted a 2019 policy decision to process regularizations as a one-time exception.

The matter was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir to the Central Administrative Tribunal.

1. Whether the respondents can indefinitely continue employees on stop-gap or in-charge arrangements without undertaking regular promotions in accordance with Recruitment Rules.

2. Whether the applicants are entitled to retrospective regularization and consequential service benefits for the period served on an in-charge basis.

The court primarily relied on the principle that in-charge or ad-hoc arrangements are temporary measures and cannot be permitted to continue indefinitely to the detriment of an employee's service rights.

It applied the precedent set in Suraj Prakash Gupta vs. State of J&K, which cautioned the State against allowing ad-hocism to persist and mandated regular promotions within a reasonable timeframe.

The court also invoked Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India regarding equality of opportunity in public employment.

Regarding financial relief, it applied the doctrine from Jai Dev Gupta v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Another (1997), which restricts arrears of monetary benefits to a period of three years preceding the filing of the petition.

The Tribunal observed that the applicants had been discharging duties of higher responsibility for over ten years on a stop-gap basis.

It noted that the respondents did not dispute the applicants' eligibility or the availability of posts, admitting that the delay was purely administrative.

The court reasoned that employees cannot be penalized for the employer's failure to hold timely DPCs or complete regularization exercises.

Since other similarly situated officers had already been regularized under the 2019 policy, the continued stagnation of the applicants was deemed arbitrary and unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal concluded that the State cannot take advantage of its own delay to defeat the legitimate service expectations and career progression of its employees.

It held that prolonged in-charge arrangements without regularization are legally impermissible.

The respondents were directed to: (a) convene a DPC/Selection Committee to consider the applicants for regular promotion to AE, AEE, and EE grades per rules.

(b) regularize eligible applicants retrospectively from the date they became eligible or from the date their juniors were regularized.

(c) grant notional fixation of pay and seniority from the due date, with actual monetary benefits restricted to three years prior to the filing of the original writ petition.

The exercise must be completed within four months.