Facts
The applicant joined All India Radio in 1977 as a Programme Executive and was subsequently promoted to Junior Time Scale (JTS) in 1993 and Senior Time Scale (STS) in 2004
Source reference: p. 4-5Throughout his service, the applicant was senior to Respondent No. 4, as evidenced by various seniority lists
Source reference: p. 5, 16The applicant retired on 28.02.2009
Source reference: p. 5Following a series of litigations by other officers (notably R. Balasubramanian and Respondent No. 4), the department antedated the promotions of the applicant’s juniors to 1990 (JTS) and 1997 (STS)
Source reference: p. 8, 11Consequently, Respondent No. 4 was granted Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) benefits effective from 05.04.2007
Source reference: p. 6However, the applicant’s request for similar NFU benefits and antedated promotion was rejected via an order dated 18.08.2023, on the grounds that he had retired prior to the eligibility cut-off date of 01.04.2010
Source reference: p. 6, 12Issues
1. Whether the applicant, being senior to Respondent No. 4, is entitled to antedated promotion and subsequent NFU benefits on par with his junior despite his retirement
Source reference: p. 152. Whether the benefits of a judgment in personam can be denied to similarly situated persons on the grounds of delay and laches
Source reference: p. 22, 25Law Applied
Principle of parity and equal treatment of similarly situated employees under Article 14 of the Constitution
Source reference: p. 28Inder Pal Yadav v. Union of India, which held that those who do not approach the court should not be at a disadvantage compared to those who do
Source reference: p. 9, 22State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha, establishing that service jurisprudence requires all similarly situated persons to be treated equally
Source reference: p. 9, 22Para 18.4.3 of the DOPT OM dated 10.04.1989, which mandates that if a junior is promoted, the senior should be promoted immediately with pay fixed notionally under FR 27
Source reference: p. 10, 23Reasoning
The Tribunal found that the inter-se seniority clearly placed the applicant above Respondent No. 4
Source reference: p. 16It observed that while the official respondents implemented the orders of the Hyderabad and Madras Benches for other officers, they failed to extend the same benefits to the applicant, who was in the same DPC panel year
Source reference: p. 21The court rejected the respondents' argument regarding the 01.04.2010 cut-off for NFU, noting that since the applicant's juniors (including a deceased officer) were granted NFU effective from 05.04.2007—a date when the applicant was still in service—the denial was arbitrary
Source reference: p. 8, 26On the issue of delay, the Tribunal reasoned that because the department altered seniority and promotion dates without notifying all affected parties, and the anomaly only surfaced in 2023, the applicant could not be faulted for "waiting"
Source reference: p. 25-26The Tribunal emphasized that the implementation of the N.K. Mohan Ram case proved that the respondents had previously extended such benefits to retired employees in identical circumstances
Source reference: p. 27, 28Holding
The Tribal allowed the OA and set aside the impugned order dated 18.08.2023. It held that the applicant is entitled to notional promotion in JTS and STS grades on par with his junior, Respondent No. 4, based on his superior seniority
The respondents were directed to grant the applicant NFU benefits with all consequential pensionary revisions. However, the court applied the principle of "no work, no pay" and directed that the applicant shall not be entitled to arrears of pay and allowances for the period of notional promotion
Source reference: p. 29Original Court PDF
S S HIREMATHvsPRASAR BHARTI
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in