Retrospective promotion cannot be granted where no live vacancies existed during the relevant years.

The applicants, Data Processing Assistant Grade ‘B’ employees of the National Crime Records Bureau, sought retrospective promotion and regularisation from the dates on which they claimed to have completed the requisite qualifying service, as well as classification of the post as Group ‘B’ Gazetted.

The Tribunal, by order dated 23.02.2012, directed the respondents to consider the applicants, along with other eligible DPA Grade ‘A’ officers, for promotion to DPA Grade ‘B’ against vacancies for each year from 1995, and to grant notional promotion if found fit for any year before 2005; consequential actual pay benefits were also directed for applicants already promoted on an ad hoc basis.

The respondents challenged that order before the Delhi High Court. By order dated 02.02.2024, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Tribunal had directed only consideration against available vacancies and subject to all relevant eligibility conditions; it also upheld consideration under the Model Recruitment Rules available since 1998.

In compliance, the respondents passed an order dated 21.05.2024, concluding that only one promotion vacancy existed between 1995 and 2003 and that it had already been utilised for Shri Sridhar Prakash, while ten posts were revived only in 2004 and promotions were made from 2005.

The applicants had filed an execution application, MA No. 983/2013, while the respondents had filed MA No. 2876/2014 seeking extension of time for compliance.

1. Whether the respondents had complied with the Tribunal’s directions, as clarified and upheld by the Delhi High Court, to consider the applicants for retrospective promotion against available vacancies from 1995.

2. Whether MA No. 983/2013, filed for execution, and MA No. 2876/2014, filed for extension of time, required any further orders after the respondents’ compliance order dated 21.05.2024.

3. Whether the applicants were entitled to retrospective promotion before 2005 in the absence of available live vacancies.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal over service matters.

The Tribunal applied the principle that retrospective promotion must be considered vacancy-year-wise through the appropriate selection/DPC process and remains subject to the applicable recruitment rules, seniority, eligibility and availability of vacancies.

The Delhi High Court affirmed that a direction to consider promotion does not amount to a direction to grant promotion for a particular year and must operate only against available vacancies and subject to all relevant factors.

The respondents also relied on the Department of Expenditure’s principle that a post remaining unfilled for one year or more is deemed abolished unless revived through the prescribed procedure.

The earlier decision in Union of India v. V. Ramakrishnan was referred to in the compliance order for the proposition that promotion cannot automatically be directed under Model Recruitment Rules before their formal applicability.

The Tribunal noted that the High Court had upheld the original direction as one requiring only a proper consideration of the applicants’ claims, not automatic retrospective promotion.

The respondents’ order examined the vacancy position from 1995 onwards, the applicable UPSC-approved recruitment method, the seniority of DPA Grade ‘A’ officers, the revival of posts in 2004, and the regular promotions granted from 13.06.2005.

Since the sole live promotion vacancy between 1995 and 2003 had already been occupied by the senior-most eligible officer, and no further live vacancies existed before 2005, the applicants could not be granted promotion for the earlier period.

The Tribunal therefore treated the respondents’ consideration and decision as compliance with the judicial directions.

The applicants were not entitled to retrospective promotion before 2005 because no further live vacancies were available during the relevant period.

MA No. 983/2013, the execution application inadvertently shown as disposed of, was formally disposed of, and MA No. 2876/2014, seeking extension of time, was disposed of as infructuous.

There was no order as to costs.