Promotion requires actual assumption of duties; retired employees are ineligible for retrospective or notional financial benefits.

The applicant, a member of the Rajasthan Administrative Service (RAS) since 1982, sought promotion to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) against the vacancy year 2012

While the Selection Committee Meeting (SCM) held on 13.10.2015 found him "Very Good" and provisionally included him in the 2012 select list, his promotion was subject to the clearance of pending criminal proceedings and the grant of an integrity certificate by the State Government

During the pendency of this Original Application (OA), which was filed in 2015, the applicant reached the age of superannuation and retired from service

Whether the applicant is entitled to appointment to the IAS against the 2012 vacancy year and consequential benefits after having superannuated during the pendency of the litigation

The Tribunal primarily relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Government of West Bengal & Ors. v. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors. (2024 SCC Online SC 3512), which established that promotion becomes effective only upon the actual assumption of duties and not from the date a vacancy arises or a recommendation is made

It further applied the principle that while the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16(1), there is no fundamental right to the promotion itself (Bihar State Electricity Board v. Dharamdeo Das, 2024 SCC Online SC 1768)

Additionally, the court noted that retrospective promotion or seniority cannot be granted to an employee for a period when they were not borne in the cadre (State of Bihar v. Akhouri Sachindra Nath, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 334)

The Tribunal analyzed the applicant's claim in light of his retirement during the litigation.

It observed that for a promotion to be effectuated, the employee must be in active service to assume the responsibilities of the higher post

Following the ratio in Dr. Amal Satpathi, the Tribunal noted that even if there were administrative delays or prior recommendations for promotion, a retired employee cannot be granted retrospective financial or notional benefits because the promotion never became effective through the assumption of duties

Since the applicant has superannuated, the Tribunal found it impossible to direct the respondents to complete the promotion process as the applicant is no longer eligible to hold the post or perform its duties

The court concluded that this was not a fit case for interference given that the applicant cannot assume the duties of the promotional post post-retirement

No order as to costs was passed