Superannuated employees have no vested right to notional promotion where DPC delays are bona fide and administrative.

The applicant, an SC category employee, joined the NDMC in 1995 and was promoted to Senior Electric Mechanic in 2014

In March 2021, the NDMC invited applications for promotion to Foreman (Sub-station); the applicant qualified the trade test on June 15, 2021, and was placed within the zone of consideration

The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was scheduled for August 18, 2021, and rescheduled for August 31, 2021, but was postponed both times by the respondents

The applicant retired on superannuation on August 31, 2021

Subsequently, the DPC was convened after his retirement, and his junior was promoted effective March 22, 2022

The applicant challenged the order dated January 5, 2022, rejecting his representation for notional promotion and revised pensionary benefits

The respondents contended that the delay was due to a lack of quorum and administrative exigencies, as one DPC member held dual charges

1. Whether an employee is entitled to notional promotion if the DPC is delayed beyond their date of retirement due to administrative reasons

2. Whether the delay in convening the DPC in the present case was arbitrary, malafide, or a deliberate attempt to deny the applicant his promotion

there is no vested right to promotion, only a right to be considered for promotion in accordance with the rules (Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India)

promotion can only be granted when it is actually due and recommended by a DPC (Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman)

bona fide administrative delays in holding a DPC do not automatically entitle an employee to retrospective promotion (Union of India v. Hemraj Singh Chauhan)

promotion depends upon the fulfillment of conditions and actual consideration by the competent authority (Union of India v. K.K. Vadera)

requires proof of arbitrariness or hostile discrimination for a claim under Articles 14 and 16 to succeed (Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab)

The Tribunal found that the respondents provided a satisfactory explanation for the postponement of the DPC, citing a lack of quorum because the Joint Director (Electric) was also holding the charge of the Personnel Department, thereby reducing the available members.

The Tribunal determined that this delay was procedural and administrative rather than arbitrary or malafide.

Applying the rule from Shankarsan Dash, the court reasoned that the applicant’s qualification in the trade test did not confer an indefeasible right to promotion.

Since the DPC never met during the applicant's tenure, no recommendation existed in his favor prior to his superannuation.

The Tribunal rejected the "taking advantage of own wrong" argument, noting that the applicant failed to prove the delay was an intentional act to favor his junior.

Consequently, once the applicant retired, he ceased to be in service, and in the absence of specific rules allowing post-retirement consideration, no notional promotion could be granted.

The court concluded that mere expectation of promotion does not equate to a legally enforceable right if the DPC is delayed for bona fide administrative reasons.

The Original Application was dismissed, and the impugned order dated January 5, 2022, was upheld.

No order as to costs was made.