Right to financial upgradation accrues only upon completion of eligibility period under rules prevailing at that time.

The applicant, an Assistant Personnel Officer (APO-I) in the N.F. Railway, was screened for Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) on January 1, 2018

Under the then-prevailing policy (RBE 62/2008), NFU to Grade Pay Rs. 5400/- was granted upon completing three years of regular service in Group-B

The applicant was set to complete this period on March 13, 2018

However, on March 8, 2018, the Railway Board issued RBE No. 37/2018, which increased the eligibility period for NFU from three years to four years, effective from the date of publication

Consequently, the respondents denied the applicant the upgrade in 2018, granting it instead on March 12, 2019

The applicant challenged the retrospective application of the new policy, asserting that his right had crystallized when the vacancy arose and screening was conducted under the old rules

The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding a six-year delay in filing the OA

1. Whether the Original Application is barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

2. Whether the applicant acquired a vested or crystallized right to NFU under the old policy (RBE 62/2008) by virtue of being screened before the notification of the new policy (RBE 37/2018)

3. Whether RBE 37/2018 operates retrospectively to nullify the applicant's eligibility

The Tribunal primarily applied the principles governing the amendment of service rules under the Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, as manifested in RBE 37/2018

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar (2022), which explicitly overruled Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao, establishing that vacancies occurring prior to a rule amendment are not automatically governed by the old rules unless the statute expressly provides so

Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 regarding limitation periods

The Tribunal first addressed the issue of limitation, electing to condone the delay on the grounds that financial upgradation and pay-related grievances constitute a recurring cause of action

On the merits, the Tribunal rejected the applicant's contention that the screening process on January 1, 2018, created a vested right

It reasoned that under RBE 62/2008, a right to NFU only matures upon the actual completion of the prescribed three-year service period

Since the applicant’s eligibility was set to mature on March 12/13, 2018, but the rules were amended on March 8, 2018, the new requirement of four years’ service became applicable before his right could crystallize

Applying the doctrine from State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar, the Tribunal held that the rules in force at the time of the applicant’s eventual eligibility must prevail

The Tribunal noted that RBE 37/2018 was prospective as it applied to all future eligibility determinations from its date of publication

It held that the applicant had no vested right to be governed by the superseded RBE 62/2008 because his eligibility had not matured prior to the notification of RBE 37/2018

The prayer to quash or modify RBE 37/2018 and the request for retrospective upgradation were denied

No costs were awarded