Retired employees cannot claim notional promotion absent established wrongful denial during service.

The applicant, initially engaged as a Monthly Rated Casual Labourer in the Railways, was regularised as Khalasi and subsequently promoted as Signal Maintainer Grade-III, Grade-II and Grade-I.

He was shown senior to private respondents Bare Lal and Mohd. Imran Khan in the 2011 and 2014 seniority lists. By office orders dated 27 April 2015 and 9 June 2015, the seniority position was revised, placing both private respondents above him.

They were consequently promoted as Senior Technicians on 18 January 2016, while the applicant was denied promotion.

The applicant’s representation dated 20 February 2017 was rejected by a speaking order dated 8 August 2018, passed pursuant to the Tribunal’s directions in an earlier Original Application.

The respondents maintained that the seniority corrections were made after verification of service records and after inviting objections under the applicable Railway rules.

The applicant challenged the rejection order and sought restoration of his seniority, promotion from 18 January 2016, arrears and consequential benefits.

Whether the respondents lawfully revised the applicant’s seniority vis-à-vis Bare Lal and Mohd. Imran Khan on the basis of their verified service particulars and under the applicable Railway rules?

Whether the revision of seniority was vitiated for violation of natural justice because the applicant allegedly was not served notice or given an opportunity to object?

Whether the applicant was entitled, on the basis of IREM Volume I, Master Circular No. 22 and RBE No. 106/1989, to retain past seniority and claim seniority over respondent No. 5?

Whether the applicant was entitled to retrospective or notional promotion as Senior Technician from 18 January 2016, together with consequential monetary and retiral benefits, after his retirement?

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 as the jurisdictional basis for the Original Application.

It considered Paragraph 224(ii) of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual as the provision under which corrections to the seniority list could be made after verification and invitation of objections.

The applicant’s reliance on IREM Volume I, Master Circular No. 22 and Railway Board Circular RBE No. 106/1989 was rejected because he failed to establish their applicability to the facts.

The Tribunal reiterated that inter se seniority is primarily an administrative determination and judicial review is limited to cases of arbitrariness, mala fides, perversity or violation of statutory rules.

It further relied on Government of West Bengal v. Dr. Amal Satpati, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3512, read with Bihar State Electricity Board v. Dharamdeo Das, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1768, for the principle that an employee has a right to consideration for promotion but no automatic right to promotion or notional promotion after retirement.

It also relied on State of Bihar v. Akhouri Sachindra Nath, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 334, for the rule that retrospective seniority cannot ordinarily be granted from a date when the employee was not borne in the relevant cadre.

The Tribunal found that the speaking order dated 8 August 2018 examined the relevant service records and correctly recorded that Bare Lal had been regularised in the Signal and Telecommunication Department on 14 February 1984, whereas the applicant entered that department only on 12 April 1993.

Bare Lal was therefore senior to the applicant on the basis of department-specific service.

The correction concerning Mohd. Imran Khan was also made after consideration of his representation and under Paragraph 224(ii) of the IREM.

The applicant’s allegation that no notice was served was treated as a bare assertion.

Since the respondents specifically stated that objections had been invited by the orders dated 27 April 2015 and 9 June 2015, and the applicant produced no material showing that the prescribed procedure was not followed, the Tribunal declined to interfere on natural-justice grounds.

The Tribunal further held that mere reliance on RBE No. 106/1989 and related circulars, without demonstrating their applicability or showing that the service-record findings were contrary to those provisions, could not invalidate the revised seniority.

Because the applicant failed to establish any arbitrariness, perversity, mala fides or statutory violation in the seniority determination, he had no enforceable right to promotion over the private respondents.

His retirement also prevented the grant of automatic retrospective or notional promotion, particularly when wrongful denial of promotion had not been established.

The applicant failed to establish entitlement under the cited Railway circulars, violation of natural justice, or any enforceable right to promotion from 18 January 2016.

Accordingly, the challenge to the speaking order dated 8 August 2018 was rejected, and Original Application No. 1198/2018 was dismissed.

No order as to costs was made, and all pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, were disposed of.