Review: Promotion effective only upon assuming duties, not retrospective post-retirement.

The Review Applicants, eleven retired Group A Directors, sought a review of the order dated 18.12.2025 in O.A No. 4424/2018, which dismissed their original application for promotion

The original order noted that while the respondents admitted a delay in preparing the Select List of Directors, this delay was considered bona fide due to the arduous process of collecting vigilance status and other service particulars for approximately 95 officers

The original order also relied on the principle from *Govt. of West Bengal & Others vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Others*, stating that promotions cannot be accorded to government servants after retirement for posts on which they never worked

The applicants were in the zone of consideration but had retired by the time the Select List was published on 27.09.2018, and thus were not granted promotion

The Review Petitioners argued that the previous order suffered from patent errors and ignored records

They also asserted that their case was covered by *Bishen Dass vs. Secretary-DoPT* (OA No. 2451/2017) and *UOI vs. Baljit Kaur* (WP (C) No. 17226/2022), which were upheld by higher courts

Whether the judgment and order dated 18.12.2025 passed in O.A No. 4424/2018 should be reviewed and the original application heard

Whether the original order suffered from patent errors apparent on its face or a miscarriage of justice due to ignored records or new points of facts/law

The Tribunal applied Rule 17 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, read with Section 19 and Section 22(3)(f) of the CAT Act, 1985, regarding the power to review

It also considered Order XLVII Rule (1) of the CPC concerning review applications

The core legal principle relied upon was the binding precedent from the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in *Govt. of West Bengal & Others vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Others* (Diary No. 43488 of 2023 dated 27.11.2024), which states that the right to be considered for promotion is not an absolute right to promotion itself, and promotion only becomes effective upon the assumption of duties on the promotional post, not on the date of vacancy or recommendation

Further, the Tribunal acknowledged the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the power of tribunals to review their own orders in *State of West Bengal & others vs. Kamal Sengupta and another* (2008 (3) AISLJ 209) and the principle that re-arguing a case is not permissible in review, as held in *UOI vs. Tarit Ranjan Das* (2004 SCC (L&S) 160)

The Tribunal found that there was no miscarriage of justice or travesty of law to warrant the exercise of review jurisdiction

It noted that the review petition did not present any new points of facts or law that were not previously considered

The decision in O.A No. 4424/2018 was based on factual findings, and no error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new material was demonstrated

While the applicants referenced other judgments where promotions were upheld, the Tribunal chose to abide by the ratio of *Govt. of West Bengal & Others vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Others*

This precedent explicitly states that promotion is effective only upon assuming duties on the promotional post, and since the applicants had retired without assuming the Director post, they had no absolute right to promotion after retirement

The Tribunal viewed the review application as an attempt to re-argue the case, which is impermissible under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, read with Order XLVII Rule (1) of CPC, and contrary to Supreme Court judgments

It concluded that there were no grounds for review, as no patent errors or new information were presented, and the applicants' case was squarely addressed by the principle that promotion cannot be granted to a government servant after retirement if they never assumed the promotional post

No order was made as to costs