Promotions after merger of equivalent posts are not protected and may be cancelled.

The applicant, while serving as Chargeman Grade II, was promoted to Chargeman Grade I by order dated 20 November 2008, with revised-pay benefits under Fundamental Rule 22(1)(a)(1).

Following acceptance of the Sixth Central Pay Commission recommendations, the posts of Chargeman Grade II (non-technical) and Chargeman Grade I (non-technical) were merged with effect from 1 September 2008.

The applicant was consequently issued a show-cause notice dated 12 September 2009, and, after considering his reply, the respondents cancelled his promotion by order dated 20 October 2009.

The applicant challenged the cancellation order and also sought quashing of the Office Memorandum dated 16 October 2015, which prescribed 29 August 2008 as the cut-off date for protecting promotions made in the pre-revised pay structure after the merger of the two posts.

The respondents defended the cancellation on the ground that the applicant’s promotion occurred after the effective date of merger and had therefore become inconsequential.

Whether the respondents were justified in cancelling the applicant’s promotion to Chargeman Grade I on the ground that the post had merged with Chargeman Grade II with effect from 1 September 2008?

Whether the Office Memorandum dated 16 October 2015, prescribing 29 August 2008 as the cut-off date for protection of promotions made in the pre-revised pay structure, was arbitrary, unlawful, or discriminatory?

The Tribunal applied the provisions of Fundamental Rule 22(1)(a)(1) concerning pay fixation upon promotion.

It also applied the Sixth Central Pay Commission implementation measures and the consequential merger of the posts of Chargeman Grade II and Chargeman Grade I, effective from 1 September 2008.

Under the applicable administrative instructions, promotions made in the pre-revised pay structure between 1 January 2006 and 29 August 2008 were protected, whereas promotions made after the prescribed cut-off date were not entitled to such protection.

The Office Memorandum dated 16 October 2015 expressly limited protection to promotions falling within that period and arising from the merger of the two posts.

The Tribunal held that the applicant’s promotion occurred on 20 November 2008, or, as referred to in the concluding paragraph, 22 November 2008, in either event after the 29 August 2008 cut-off date and after the effective merger of the posts.

Since the merger had already taken effect, the promotion to Chargeman Grade I no longer conferred an operative distinct status and was therefore correctly treated as inconsequential.

The Tribunal found that the protection available under the administrative instructions was confined to promotions made between 1 January 2006 and 29 August 2008; the applicant did not fall within that protected category.

It further noted that the applicant had not pleaded that cancellation of the promotion adversely affected his pay or caused any financial prejudice.

Accordingly, the Tribunal found no arbitrariness or illegality either in the cancellation order or in the cut-off date prescribed by the Office Memorandum.

It upheld the cancellation of the applicant’s promotion because it was made after the effective merger of Chargeman Grade II and Chargeman Grade I and after the applicable cut-off date.

It also upheld the validity of the Office Memorandum dated 16 October 2015.

Original Application No. 1117 of 2017 was dismissed, with no order as to costs.