Retired employees are ineligible for retrospective promotion in DPCs conducted after their superannuation.

The applicant, an Electrician (HS-I) in the Military Engineer Services (MES), retired on superannuation on 30.09.2024

He challenged a promotion order dated 09.12.2024, which promoted five of his juniors (Respondents 5 to 9) to the grade of Master Craftsman (MCM)

The applicant contended that nine vacancies in the MCM cadre existed during the recruitment years 2022 and 2023 while he was still in service and within the zone of consideration, but the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was delayed due to administrative negligence

The respondents submitted that DPCs for 2022 and 2023 were conducted and eligible candidates were promoted based on available vacancies and category-wise merit

The specific DPC leading to the impugned order was approved on 07.12.2024, by which time the applicant had already retired; thus, his name was excluded as he was no longer in active service

1. Whether a retired employee is entitled to be considered for promotion to a post that fell vacant during his service period if the DPC and promotion orders are finalized after his superannuation.

2. Whether the non-consideration of the applicant for promotion against prior vacancies constitutes a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

The court primarily applied the legal principle established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. v. Manpreet Singh Poonam Etc. (2022), which holds that retirement results in the cessation of the "jural relationship" between employer and employee

Under this precedent, a former employee cannot agitate past or future rights, including promotion, unless specifically prescribed by service rules, as promotion simpliciter is distinct from financial upgradation

The court also noted the constitutional protections under Articles 14 and 16 regarding equality of opportunity in public employment

The Tribunal examined whether the delay in holding the DPC entitled the applicant to retrospective promotion.

It noted that the respondents had conducted DPCs for 2022 and 2023 for certain vacancies, but the specific promotion panel in question was only approved on 07.12.2024

By this date, the applicant had ceased to be an employee due to his superannuation on 30.09.2024

The Tribunal reasoned that since the applicant was not in service when the promotion order was issued, he could not claim a right to be promoted alongside his juniors who were still in active service

Relying on the Manpreet Singh Poonam judgment, the Tribunal held that a "golden handshake" occurs upon retirement, terminating the employer-employee relationship and barring the applicant from claiming retrospective promotion based on the timing of actual vacancies versus the date of the DPC

It concluded that the respondents acted in accordance with established rules and judicial precedents by excluding the applicant from a promotion order issued after his retirement

Consequently, the Original Application was dismissed as being devoid of merit

No order was made as to costs