Respondents directed to consider employee’s refusal of promotion-cum-posting in accordance with governing administrative instructions.

The applicant, a Fireman (P. No. 6970659F) serving in the 10 RAPID (H) Ordnance Unit at Jammu, was issued a Promotion-cum-Posting Order on December 27, 2025, elevating him to the rank of Leading Fireman

The applicant submitted a formal representation on January 6, 2026, expressing his unwillingness to accept the promotion and requesting to remain at his current station, effectively offering to forfeit his seniority

Seeking to prevent the respondents from compelling him to join the promotional post or taking disciplinary action for his refusal, the applicant filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

1. Whether the respondents are obligated to consider an employee's refusal of promotion and retention at their current station in light of existing administrative instructions

2. Whether the applicant can be protected from coercive action or forced joining pending the disposal of his representation regarding his unwillingness for promotion

Paragraph 13(f) of the Army Ordnance Corps (AOC) Records Office Instruction Serial No. C/01/2025 dated February 10, 2025

This rule stipulates that if an individual refuses a Promotion-cum-Posting for genuine reasons acceptable to the administration, they shall be debarred from promotion for one year and lose seniority relative to juniors

Department of Personnel and AR OM No. 22034/3/81-Estt (D) dated October 1, 1981, which clarifies that while promotion can be enforced if reasons are not genuine (potentially leading to disciplinary action), the administration must first exercise discretion in evaluating the refusal

The Tribunal analyzed the limited prayer of the applicant, who did not contest the promotion on merits but sought the enforcement of the administrative provision allowing for "unwillingness"

The court noted that Paragraph 13(f) of the AOC Instructions provides a specific mechanism for handling such refusals, contingent upon the administration's assessment of the "genuineness" of the reasons

The Tribunal determined that the Respondent No. 3 (Commandant, AOC Records) is the competent authority to perform this examination

The court reasoned that since a formal representation was already pending (dated January 6, 2026), the interest of justice would be served by maintaining the status quo and requiring a reasoned order from the respondents

The Tribunal ordered that if the applicant has not yet been relieved, he shall be permitted to continue at his present post and no coercive action shall be taken against him until the representation is decided and the decision is communicated