Promotion requires actual assumption of charge, precluding notional pay fixation for retired employees.

The applicants are retired employees of the Military Engineer Services (MES); Applicant No. 1 retired on 31.05.2019, and Applicant No. 2 retired on 31.10.2018.

Both were within the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Master Craftsman (MCM) against vacancies for the year 2016–17.

However, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was delayed and only convened after their retirement.

On 18.08.2021, the DPC recommended them for promotion, but the order (Annexure A-1) stipulated that promotions would take effect only from the date of actual assumption of charge.

Consequently, the applicants were denied financial benefits and notional fixation of pay because they had already retired.

The respondents attributed the delay to administrative constraints, including the mandatory requirement of Annual Performance Assessment Reports (APARs) and obtaining establishment sanctions.

The applicants challenged the denial, citing administrative lethargy and seeking retrospective promotion from 01.04.2016.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to notional promotion and pay fixation from the date the vacancies arose (2016-17) despite retiring before the DPC was convened.

2. Whether administrative delay in conducting a DPC entitles a retired employee to retrospective financial benefits in the absence of actual assumption of charge.

The Tribunal primarily applied the principle that while the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right under Article 16, there is no fundamental right to promotion itself.

It relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Government of West Bengal v. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors. (2024), which established that promotion becomes effective only upon the assumption of duties and not from the date of the vacancy.

The Tribunal further cited Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors. v. Dharamdeo Das (2024), affirming that promotion is effective from the date it is granted.

Additionally, it applied DoPT O.M. dated 27.02.2013, which prohibits notional fixation of pay on the grounds of delayed DPCs.

DoPT O.M. dated 14.11.2014, which permits the inclusion of retired officials in a panel for consideration but denies them the right to actual promotion.

The Tribunal examined whether the delay in convening the DPC was so arbitrary as to warrant a departure from standard rules.

It noted the respondents' contention that the delay was due to systemic administrative changes, specifically the new requirement for APARs for industrial personnel, which affected all eligible employees equally.

Consequently, the Tribunal found no evidence of "hostile discrimination" against the applicants.

Applying the ratio in Dr. Amal Satpathi, the Tribunal observed that since the applicants had already retired, they could not satisfy the mandatory condition of "assumption of charge" required to draw pay and allowances of the higher post.

The Tribunal distinguished the applicants' citations by noting that those cases often involved "administrative lethargy" not present here, and emphasized that current Supreme Court jurisprudence (specifically Amal Satpathi and K. Samba Moorthy) holds that financial benefits cannot be granted retrospectively if the employee never occupied the promotional post.

It concluded that the right to be considered was satisfied by their inclusion in the DPC process as per the 2014 O.M., but actual promotion requires the assumption of duties, which was impossible post-retirement.

The Original Application was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.