Right to Promotion is Not Indefeasible and Subject to Suitability and Service Record Requirements

The original applicant, Kamal Kumar Sharma (now represented by his legal heirs), joined service in 1974 and was absorbed into MTNL

His promotional benefits were withheld due to a criminal case registered in 1997, resulting in a deemed suspension from 1997 to 2001

Following his acquittal on May 18, 2016, the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) regularized his suspension period as "spent on duty" and granted him retrospective permanent absorption effective November 1, 1998

The applicant sought retrospective promotion (NE-8 to NE-12) and Biennial Cadre Review (BCR) benefits, which were denied by MTNL citing missing Confidential Report (CR) dossiers for 1993–1995 and the pendency of the criminal trial during the relevant years

The applicant superannuated in 2013 and subsequently passed away during the proceedings

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to retrospective promotion and consequential financial benefits solely based on the regularization of his suspension and acquittal in a criminal case

2. Whether the non-consideration for promotion due to missing CR dossiers and the pendency of criminal proceedings during the service period constituted an arbitrary or discriminatory act by the respondents

The Tribunal primarily relied on the settled principle of service jurisprudence that the right to be considered for promotion is not an indefeasible or inalienable right to actually be promoted

Government of West Bengal Ors. vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi Ors. (2024 INSC 906), which emphasizes that suitability and administrative procedures govern promotional exercises

Furthermore, it noted that for MTNL employees, promotional policies are Board-driven and subject to administrative scrutiny, including vigilance clearance and assessment of ACRs/APARs

The Tribunal distinguished this case from previous precedents cited by the applicant, noting that the deceased was a "tainted officer" involved in a criminal case during his active service years

Although the suspension was regularized after acquittal, the court observed that MTNL did attempt to consider his case for promotion from NE-8 to NE-9 but faced a legitimate administrative handicap: the absence of CR dossiers for the periods 1993 to 1995

The Tribunal reasoned that since the applicant had already received one promotion under the OTBP Scheme in 1993, his subsequent non-promotion in 2003 was not due to malice but due to the legal impediment of the then-pending criminal trial and lack of requisite records

The court concluded that the respondents did not act with irrationality or discrimination, as the process was stalled by valid procedural requirements rather than arbitrary denial

The court directly answered that the mere regularization of suspension does not grant an automatic right to promotion, especially when administrative prerequisites (like ACR availability and suitability) are not met

The final order dismissed the OA and all pending MAs with no order as to costs