Promotion relief becomes infructuous upon retirement if duties not assumed in higher post.

The applicant, Ajit Kumar Rajak, filed the present Original Application (OA) in the Jaipur Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking the quashing of an office memorandum dated March 31, 2014, and an order dated December 12, 2013

He requested directions that respondents consider additional vacancies for the year 2012-13, promote him to a higher grade based on those vacancies, fix his year of allotment as 2004 instead of 2005, and fix his seniority according to Rule 15(4)(i) of the IFS (Recruitment, Cadre, Seniority and Promotion) Rules 1961

On January 2, 2019, the Hon'ble Chairman transferred the OA to the Principal Bench at New Delhi following an application by the respondents, as the applicant and all respondents were stationed in Delhi

During the pendency of the OA, the applicant retired from service

1. Whether the primary relief sought in the Original Application, pertaining to promotion to a higher post, survives for adjudication after the applicant's retirement from service

The court primarily applied the principle that promotion only becomes effective upon the assumption of duties on the promotional post, not on the date of vacancy or recommendation

This principle was derived from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in *Govt. of West Bengal and Ors. v. Dr. Amal Satpathy and Ors.*, dated November 27, 2024, which specifically held that an employee must assume responsibilities of a higher post to draw corresponding pay, preventing retrospective promotions in the absence of an enabling provision

It affirmed that while the right to be considered for promotion is fundamental, there is no absolute right to the promotion itself

The court found that the applicant had retired from service during the pendency of the OA

The principal relief sought was promotion to a higher post

Applying the precedent from *Govt. of West Bengal and Ors. v. Dr. Amal Satpathy and Ors.*, the court reasoned that promotion becomes effective only upon the actual assumption of duties in the promotional post, not merely upon a recommendation or the existence of a vacancy, and there is no absolute right to promotion itself

Since the applicant had superannuated and could no longer assume the duties of a higher post, the cause of action for promotion no longer survived for adjudication

The OA was dismissed as having become infructuous, and any pending Miscellaneous Application(s) were also disposed of

There was no order as to costs