Retirement and settlement of retiral benefits renders a challenge to promotion date revision infructuous.

The applicant was regularly promoted to the post of Assistant Director (Architecture) by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) on 08.10.2009 and subsequently to Deputy Director (Architecture) on 07.12.2018

Following a judgment by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in WP No. 8469/2009, which interpreted a specific note in the Recruitment Rules (RRs), the respondents conducted review Departmental Promotion Committees (DPCs)

Consequently, the DDA issued impugned orders dated 21.03.2021 and 04.05.2021, which relegated the applicant's promotion year for Assistant Director from 2009 to the panel year 2015–16

During the pendency of the original application (OA), the applicant retired on 31.05.2023, having served as Deputy Director until his superannuation

The applicant sought to quash the impugned orders, primarily fearing that the change in the seniority year would lead to a recovery or adversely affect his retiral benefits

1. Whether the impugned orders dated 21.03.2021 and 04.05.2021, relegating the applicant's promotion year, are legally sustainable in view of his retirement and settled retiral dues

2. Whether the cause of action survives following the applicant's retirement and the respondent’s statement that no recovery has been initiated

The court's reasoning was informed by the interpretation of Recruitment Rules (RRs) as mandated by the Hon’ble High Court in WP No. 8469/2009

The court referenced the legal principles regarding the interpretation of RRs as established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in RB Desai vs. S K Khanolker (1999) 7 SCC 54 and Palure Bhaskar Rao v. P. Ramaseshaiah (2017) 5 SCC 783

the principle that a legal challenge becomes infructuous if the grievance is resolved or eclipsed by subsequent events, such as retirement and the settlement of dues without recovery

The Tribunal noted that the impugned orders were a direct result of implementing High Court directions to rectify seniority based on a corrected interpretation of the RRs

Although the applicant’s initial promotion year to Assistant Director was shifted forward, his subsequent promotion to Deputy Director remained undisturbed, and he completed his service in that higher capacity

The Tribunal observed that the respondents had already settled the applicant's retiral dues and stated on record that no action for recovery had been initiated

Consequently, the Tribunal reasoned that while the applicant might have had a cause of action while in service, the passage of time and his retirement—coupled with the lack of any actual financial prejudice—rendered the legal challenge moot

The court declined to interfere with the impugned orders as the applicant's retiral dues were settled and his promotion to Deputy Director was not disturbed

The OA was disposed of as infructuous with no orders as to costs