Retirement does not defeat regularization where an eligible promotion-quota vacancy arose during service.

The applicant was placed as In-charge Superintending Engineer on 23 January 2019 and served in that capacity until his retirement on 30 September 2019.

His promotion as Executive Engineer was later regularized retrospectively from 1 March 2014.

He sought regularization as Superintending Engineer from 23 January 2019 and consequential pay and pensionary benefits, asserting that vacancies existed before his retirement.

The respondents opposed the claim, relying on the fact that his immediate senior and junior were regularized from 6 February 2020; the Public Service Commission stated that his case had been withheld in 2022 over a seniority-related issue.

1. Whether the applicant could be denied consideration for regularization as Superintending Engineer solely because the DPC was held after his retirement and his immediate senior and junior were regularized from 6 February 2020.

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to regularization from the date, if any, between 23 January and 30 September 2019 when a substantive vacancy within the promotion quota became available to him, subject to eligibility and suitability.

The Tribunal applied the principle in Suraj Parkash Gupta & Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors., (2000) 7 SCC 561, concerning Rule 23 of the J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956.

Under that principle, ad hoc or stop-gap promotion service may be regularized retrospectively from the date a substantive vacancy becomes available within the promotion quota, provided the officer meets the applicable eligibility, fitness and suitability requirements; administrative delay in completing the process does not, by itself, defeat the claim.

In-charge service does not automatically confer regular promotion from its commencement: the relevant date depends on the availability of a clear substantive vacancy within the officer’s quota.

The applicant’s retrospective regularization as Executive Engineer meant his feeder-cadre status had to be assessed from the effective date of that regularization, not merely from the date the order was issued.

The Tribunal held that the later DPC date, the regularization date of the applicant’s senior and junior, and the applicant’s intervening retirement could not alone dispose of his claim.

The decisive question was whether a clear substantive vacancy within the promotion quota became available to him before 30 September 2019 and whether he was then eligible, fit and suitable.

Because the respondents held the relevant vacancy and service records, they were directed to verify the position; the Tribunal did not treat the in-charge placement itself as sufficient proof of entitlement.

If a qualifying vacancy was available to the applicant during that period and he met the prescribed requirements, the respondents must regularize him from the date the vacancy became available to him.

If those conditions were met on 23 January 2019, regularization must take effect from that date.

The applicant would then receive consequential pay fixation and revision of pension and other retiral benefits.

The exercise was to be completed within three months of receipt of a certified copy of the order; no order as to costs was made.