Seniority Cannot Be Ignored Solely Because the Employer Diverted an Employee to Higher Incharge Responsibilities.

The applicant, appointed as Junior Assistant in 1978, rose to the rank of Head Assistant in 2005.

In 2016 and 2017, he was placed as "Incharge" Headquarter Assistant and "Incharge" Block Development Officer (BDO), respectively.

In 2019, the Government rescinded his placement as Incharge BDO, which he challenged in TA 127/2020.

During the pendency of the litigation, he retired on June 30, 2019.

The respondents contended that under the 2007 Recruitment Rules, his proper promotional channel was Section Officer, not BDO.

The respondents subsequently rejected his claim for regularization as Section Officer via order dated March 20, 2025, on the ground that he had never held "Incharge" status for that specific post.

The applicant filed OA 1134/2025 alleging that his junior, Sham Sunder Gupta, was promoted to Section Officer in 2020 with retrospective effect from 2015, while he was ignored.

1. Whether the respondents can deny promotion to a senior employee on the ground that he did not hold "Incharge" status of a post when such placement was under the control of the Department.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to notional promotion and revised pensionary benefits from the date his junior was promoted.

The principles of seniority-cum-merit and the right to be considered for promotion under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman (1991), establishing that employees cannot be denied benefits for reasons not attributable to them.

Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab (1999) regarding the vital role of seniority in service jurisprudence.

B.V. Sivaiah v. K. Addanki Babu (1998) regarding the necessity of respecting seniority in promotions.

P.N. Premachandran v. State of Kerala (2004), which held that administrative delays in convening DPCs should not prejudice eligible employees.

The Tribunal reasoned that the respondents adopted a contradictory and "arbitrary" stance by first claiming Section Officer was the applicant's correct promotional route and then denying him that very promotion because he had been diverted by the Department to work as Incharge BDO.

The court held that an employee cannot be penalized for administrative decisions made by the employer; since the Department chose to place him in higher "Incharge" roles elsewhere, it could not use the lack of "Incharge Section Officer" status as a disqualifier.

Furthermore, since a person junior to the applicant (Sham Sunder Gupta) was promoted to Section Officer effective September 3, 2015, the applicant—being senior and having an unblemished record—possessed a legal right to be considered for promotion from the same date.

It held that the applicant is entitled to notional promotion as Section Officer/Office Manager effective September 3, 2015 (the date his junior was promoted).

The respondents were directed to notionally fix his pay up to his retirement in 2019 and release all consequential arrears of revised pension, gratuity, and leave encashment.

No arrears of salary for the pre-retirement period were granted as the promotion was notional.

TA 127/2020 was disposed of as infructuous given the applicant's retirement and the relief granted in the connected OA.