Retired employees are entitled to notional promotion and revised pensionary benefits if found fit for vacancies arising during their service.

The applicant, appointed as UDC in 1980, progressed to Superintendent in 2002 within the Central Excise Department

Despite a cadre restructuring in 2013 that created 2,118 temporary Group A posts, the department failed to conduct regular Departmental Promotion Committees (DPCs) for the post of Assistant Commissioner (AC) due to protracted litigation

The applicant retired on 30.11.2017

A DPC held in May 2018 for the vacancy years 2016-17 and 2017-18 found the applicant "FIT" for promotion

the respondents denied him the promotion order because he had already retired, citing DoPT OM dated 14.11.2014, which states retired officials have no right to actual promotion

The applicant challenged this denial, seeking notional promotion and consequential benefits

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to notional promotion to the grade of Assistant Commissioner for the vacancy year 2017-18 despite his retirement prior to the issuance of the promotion order.

2. Whether the department’s failure to adhere to the DPC calendar, resulting in promotions being granted only on an ad-hoc basis, justifies the denial of benefits to an eligible employee.

The Tribunal applied the principles of equity and natural justice, emphasizing that administrative delays should not prejudice employees

DoPT OM dated 14.11.2014, which governs the inclusion of retired officials in promotion panels

the precedent set by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in P.C. Rajalakshmi Vs. Union of India & Ors (2020), which held that if a DPC finds a retired employee eligible for a period when they were in service, they are entitled to notional promotion and pensionary refixation

Union of India v. Sadhana Khanna (2008), establishing that a mistake or delay on the part of the Department cannot recoil on the employees

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' argument that the "model calendar" for DPCs applies only to regular promotions and not ad-hoc ones, noting that such a distinction fails the test of equality since almost all promotions since 2002 were ad-hoc due to litigation

The court reasoned that since the DPC held in May 2018 specifically assessed the applicant as "FIT" for the 2017-18 vacancy year—a period during which he was still in service until November 2017—the delay in convening the DPC was a departmental lapse

Connecting the facts to the Sadhana Khanna principle, the Tribunal determined that the applicant could not be deprived of the status and retiral benefits of the higher post simply because the bureaucracy failed to act timely

The respondents were ordered to refix the applicant's pay and retirement dues accordingly within eight weeks

It directed the respondents to grant the applicant notional ad-hoc promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner for the year 2017-18... clarified that no actual arrears of pay or interest would be granted for the period prior to the order