Facts
The applicants, initially recruited as Programme Executives (Class-II) during 1984-1993, sought promotion to Assistant Station Director (Class-I).
Source reference: p.4, para. 2The promotion was governed by the All India Radio (Class-I Post) Recruitment Rules, 1963, and later by the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules, 1990 (Annexure A3), which reduced the qualifying service for promotion to 3 years and mandated annual Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meetings.
Source reference: p.5, para. 2-3Despite existing vacancies and applicants meeting eligibility criteria, DPCs were not convened for over 26 years, leading to significant delays in promotions.
Source reference: p.5, para. 3Aggrieved by this delay, several individuals and an association filed OA No. 243 of 2002 before the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which directed respondents to convene DPCs within four months.
Source reference: p.6, para. 4; p.17, para. 21Due to non-compliance, contempt proceedings were initiated in CP(C) No. 55 of 2003 and later CP(C) No. 39 of 2004, resulting in repeated directions to convene DPCs and pass consequential orders.
Source reference: p.6-7, para. 4-6; p.17-18, para. 21On November 4, 2015, in Annexure A7, the Principal Bench specifically directed the UPSC and Prasar Bharati to conduct DPCs within three months and pass consequential orders granting all benefits to deserving candidates within four months.
Source reference: p.7, para. 6; p.18, para. 21However, DPCs for 1993-2018 were eventually held belatedly in September 2018 and April 2019 (Annexures A8 and A9), and promotions were granted with prospective effect only, denying consequential benefits.
Source reference: p.7-8, para. 7The respondents justified this by citing DoP&T Office Memorandum (OM) dated March 10, 1989 (Annexure R2), which states that promotions have prospective effect even if vacancies relate to earlier years.
Source reference: p.13, para. 13Issues
Whether the applicants are entitled to retrospective promotions and consequential benefits based on the DPCs conducted in 2018 and 2019 for the panel years 1993 to 2018, despite the promotions being granted with prospective effect?
Source reference: p.12, para. 12; p.16, para. 20Whether the DoP&T OM dated March 10, 1989, limiting promotions to prospective effect, can supersede a judicial order directing the grant of consequential benefits?
Source reference: p.21, para. 25Law Applied
Judicial orders, once issued, prevail over general administrative instructions or office memoranda.
Source reference: p.18, para. 21; p.21, para. 25The Principal Bench's order in Annexure A7 explicitly directed "consequential orders would be passed granting all consequential benefits to the persons deserving to be promoted".
Source reference: p.18, para. 21The Department of Personnel & Training (DoP&T) Office Memorandum (OM) No. 22011/5/86-Estt.D, dated March 10, 1989 (Annexure R2), which stipulates that promotions have only prospective effect, even when vacancies relate to earlier years.
Source reference: p.13, para. 13; p.21, para. 25The importance of conducting DPCs at regular intervals as per DPC guidelines (Annexure A10).
Source reference: p.19, para. 23Reasoning
The court found the respondents' reliance on the DoP&T OM for prospective promotions to be misplaced given the specific judicial directives.
Source reference: no citationThe protracted litigation, which was cited by the respondents as the cause for delay, was deemed not to be a reason to deny the applicants their due benefits, especially since a judicial order (Annexure A7) explicitly mandated "consequential benefits".
Source reference: p.18-19, para. 22; p.21, para. 25An OM, as a general guideline, cannot supersede a specific judicial order passed after considering the unique circumstances, delay, and prejudice caused to the applicants.
Source reference: p.21, para. 25The undisputed neglect in convening DPCs for 26 years, despite the mandate for annual meetings and reduced qualifying service under the new rules, fortified the applicants' claim for retrospective benefits.
Source reference: p.16, para. 19; p.19, para. 23The Principal Bench's observation in Annexure A17 that a Programme Executive promoted for 1993 was artificially held in that post until 2018 without career progression.
Source reference: p.10, para. 10Holding
The court allowed the Original Application, declaring that the applicants are entitled to promotion with consequential benefits based on the DPCs conducted in 2018 and 2019 for the panel years 1993 to 2018.
The respondents were directed to provide notional promotions from the respective dates when the applicants should have been promoted, and to grant arrears of pay and allowances to all applicants, as well as pension and retirement benefits to retired applicants.
Source reference: p.21-22, para. 26This exercise must be completed within four months from the date of receiving the order, failing which it will accrue 8% interest.
Source reference: p.22, para. 26Original Court PDF
P.M. Unnikrishnan Unnithan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [Original Application No. 180/00479/2021]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in