Protected promotional status and terminal benefits cannot be disturbed if retirement occurs during the currency of stay orders.

The petitioners, belonging to the Scheduled Tribe (ST) category, were appointed as Tracers between 1990 and 1992.

Seeking promotion to Assistant Draftsmen, they claimed eligibility after five years of service against available backlog vacancies.

While they were promoted in 2000 with retrospective effect from 1995/1996, the State issued impugned corrigendums on 21.12.2010 to reduce their seniority based on Government Resolutions (GRs) dated 08.03.1999 and 05.09.2000, which altered the roster system.

The petitioners challenged these orders, and the High Court granted ad-interim relief in 2011 protecting their positions.

During the pendency of the petition, an additional affidavit from the State (2017) revealed that due to the retirement of seniors, the petitioners had naturally reached the top of the seniority list.

1. Whether the retrospective application of the 1999 and 2000 Government Resolutions to alter the seniority and promotion status of the petitioners was legally sustainable.

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to retain their promotional benefits and seniority given the subsequent change in their seniority status during the litigation.

Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the High Court's discretionary power to issue writs.

Application of the roster system and backlog vacancy rules as per Government Resolutions dated 08.03.1999 and 05.09.2000.

Principles of equity and administrative finality, noting that when an employee has served in a promotional post for a significant duration and reached the top of a seniority list through natural attrition, the recovery of past benefits or reversal of status becomes inequitable.

The court initially noted that the petitioners were eligible for promotion prior to the issuance of the 1999/2000 GRs and argued that the respondents’ deprivation of their claims was irrelevant.

However, rather than adjudicating the complex merits of the roster's retrospective application, the court focused on the "current status" of the employees as disclosed in the State's 2017 affidavit.

The State conceded that the petitioners were now "automatically placed at top of the Seniority List" because intervening seniors had retired.

Since three petitioners had already retired while enjoying the promotional benefits under the court's stay order, and the fourth was nearing superannuation, the court reasoned that the dispute had largely become academic or "infructuous".

Consequently, it determined that protecting the status quo was the most equitable resolution, preventing unnecessary recovery or demotion.

The court partly allowed the petition and made the Rule absolute.

Petitioner No. 4, set to retire in June 2026, is to continue in his present post, with his further promotion to be considered per rules, and is entitled to all retiral benefits similar to the other petitioners.