Respondents must decide pending representations by a speaking order within three months; merits remain open.

The applicant, a direct-recruit Inspector of Central Excise who joined the Chennai Zone on 9 December 2013, was selected for a sanctioned two-year deputation as Air Customs Officer, New Delhi, and joined on 26 May 2020.

During the deputation, he was promoted to the grade of Superintendent of CGST & Central Excise with effect from 1 January 2021 under Order No. 94/2020 dated 31 December 2020.

He claimed entitlement to proforma promotion under the Next Below Rule so that he could complete his deputation without loss of pay, seniority, or promotional prospects.

His request was rejected by the competent authority on 27 July 2021.

The applicant relied on the grant of similar benefits to other officers, including officers of the Chennai Zone, and on the CBIC clarification dated 29 November 2024 stating that proforma promotion under the Next Below Rule was permissible for officers on deputation.

He submitted a representation dated 8 May 2025 and a reminder dated 10 September 2025, but alleged that neither had been decided.

The OA sought, inter alia, proforma promotion from 1 January 2021, pay protection, restoration of seniority, and consequential promotional benefits.

At the hearing, however, the applicant limited his immediate request to a direction for consideration and disposal of those representations.

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and dispose of the applicant’s representation dated 8 May 2025 and reminder dated 10 September 2025 by a reasoned and speaking order.

2. Whether the applicant was substantively entitled to proforma promotion under the Next Below Rule, with consequential pay, seniority, and promotional benefits.

The Tribunal expressly declined to adjudicate this issue at the admission stage.

The applicant relied on the Next Below Rule as explained in DoPT OM No. 2/29/91-Estt.(Pay-II) dated 5 January 1994, particularly paragraphs 8.7 and 8.8, and DoPT OM No. 6/8/2009-Estt.(Pay-II) dated 17 June 2010, particularly paragraph 8.6, concerning proforma promotion of an officer serving on deputation.

He also relied on the CBIC letter No. A-11013/18/2024-Ad.IV dated 29 November 2024, stated to clarify the permissibility of such promotion.

The procedural rule applied by the Tribunal was that a pending representation involving service benefits must be considered by the competent authority and decided through an appropriate speaking and well-reasoned order; the Tribunal did not determine the merits of the claimed entitlement.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s representations dated 8 May 2025 and 10 September 2025 remained undecided.

Since the applicant confined the relief pressed at the hearing to disposal of those representations, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to require the competent authority to examine the applicant’s claim in accordance with law and issue a reasoned decision.

Although the pleadings raised questions concerning the Next Below Rule, alleged discrimination, comparable officers, pay protection, and seniority, the Tribunal expressly stated that it was not entering into the merits of those issues at that stage.

The competent authority among the respondents was directed to consider the applicant’s representation dated 8 May 2025 and reminder dated 10 September 2025 and pass an appropriate speaking and well-reasoned order within three months from receipt of a copy of the Tribunal’s order.

The Tribunal did not grant proforma promotion, pay protection, restoration of seniority, or any consequential promotional benefit, and left all substantive questions open for consideration by the respondents.