Similarly situated employees cannot be denied TBP financial upgradation solely because their promotional appointments were ad hoc.

The applicants, retired Junior Engineers/Assistant Engineers and Executive Engineers of the NDMC Civil Engineering Department, were appointed between 1972 and 1997 and were subsequently promoted as Executive Engineers on an ad hoc basis against available vacancies.

They claimed the 2nd/3rd Time Bound Promotional (TBP)/Delhi Transco Limited (DTL) Scale of ₹37,400–67,000 with Grade Pay of ₹8,900 upon completion of 18/26 years of service. The claim was denied on the ground that their promotions as Executive Engineers were not regular promotions made through a Departmental Promotion Committee.

In OA No. 1366/2016, William Parashar & Ors. v. NDMC, the Tribunal directed reconsideration of a similar claim; that order was upheld by the Delhi High Court and the NDMC’s SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 30.04.2024.

The present applicants had earlier obtained directions for consideration of their representations in OA No. 3921/2017, but their claim was rejected by orders dated 28/29.05.2019 and again by the impugned order dated 04.04.2025 after the Delhi High Court directed fresh consideration.

Whether the applicants, whose promotions as Executive Engineers were described as ad hoc, could be denied the 2nd/3rd TBP/DTL Scale solely because they had not received regular promotion through a DPC, despite having completed the requisite service and having been granted the benefit to similarly situated employees?

Whether the respondents could distinguish the applicants from the employees in OA No. 1366/2016 and deny them equal treatment after the decision in that case had attained finality?

Whether the impugned order dated 04.04.2025 validly complied with the Delhi High Court’s direction for fresh consideration, or impermissibly repeated the reasoning already rejected in the earlier litigation?

Whether the present OA was barred by limitation in view of the earlier rejection order dated 28/29.05.2019?

The Tribunal applied the TBP/DTL Scheme embodied in the Office Order dated 06.04.1999, under which financial upgradation was intended to address stagnation and the second TBP was available upon completion of the prescribed service, subject to the scheme’s conditions.

It relied on the doctrine of judicial discipline, under which administrative authorities must give effect to final judicial determinations and cannot revive grounds already rejected by competent courts.

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution require similarly situated employees governed by the same service scheme to receive equal treatment; differential treatment must rest on an intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, as explained in Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar.

The Tribunal further relied on Amrit Lal Berry v. Collector of Central Excise, K.I. Shephard v. Union of India, and State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha for the principle that similarly situated employees should ordinarily receive the benefit of a declaration of law without being compelled to undertake separate litigation.

The Tribunal also considered the persuasive principle that employees should not suffer for administrative delay in convening DPCs where they had worked against promotional posts for substantial periods.

The Tribunal held that the applicants and the employees in OA No. 1366/2016 belonged to the same Engineering Cadre, were governed by the same TBP/DTL Scheme, had comparable service histories, and had been promoted as Executive Engineers on an ad hoc basis.

The respondents failed to identify any material distinction or individual disqualification justifying different treatment. The fact that the applicants in the earlier case had litigated first could not constitute a rational basis for denying the same benefit to similarly situated employees.

The Tribunal further found that the respondents’ reliance on the requirement of regular promotion was untenable in the circumstances. The very objection that ad hoc promotion barred the financial upgradation had been considered in the William Parashar litigation, whose outcome was upheld by the High Court and attained finality after dismissal of the SLP.

The respondents could not use the fresh consideration directed by the High Court as an opportunity to mechanically repeat the same reasoning. The impugned order was therefore not merely an elaborate administrative decision but an attempt to preserve an interpretation inconsistent with the final judicial determination.

The limitation objection also failed because the present OA challenged the fresh rejection dated 04.04.2025, which gave rise to a new cause of action. Moreover, the applicants had continuously pursued their claim through the earlier OA, contempt proceedings, and writ petition, and had not acquiesced in the denial of benefits.

The Tribunal consequently concluded that denial of the benefit solely on the basis of the ad hoc nomenclature of the applicants’ promotions amounted to hostile discrimination and was unsustainable under Articles 14 and 16.

The respondents were directed to complete the exercise within three months and pay consequential monetary benefits, including pay fixation and arrears, within a further two months.

No order as to costs was made.

The Tribunal also directed the NDMC to consider disciplinary proceedings and an APAR entry against the Director (Personnel-II) for the alleged disregard of binding judicial directions.