Superannuation of an employee is no ground to deny retrospective in-situ promotion to Scientist Level S-V.

The seven applicants, all Scientists, challenged orders dated 12.05.2020 and 28.12.2020 passed by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, which denied them in-situ promotion from Scientist Level S-IV to S-V.

Although the Departmental Assessment Board (DAB) had recommended their names for promotion, the respondents withheld implementation on the sole ground that the applicants had already superannuated (retired) by the time the promotion orders were to be issued.

The respondents argued that under DoP&T Office Memorandums dated 10.04.1989 and 12.10.1998, retired officials have no right to actual promotion and promotions must be prospective.

1. Whether the superannuation of an employee is a valid legal ground to deny in-situ promotion to the post of Scientist Level S-V when the eligibility arose prior to retirement.

2. Whether judicial precedents regarding retrospective in-situ promotion prevail over administrative Office Memorandums (OMs) issued by the DoP&T.

The Tribunal primarily applied the legal principle that in-situ promotions can be granted retrospectively even after an employee's superannuation if the delay in convening the DAB was administrative.

It relied on the precedent set by the Delhi High Court in Naresh C. Dhawan & Ors. v. Union of India (W.P.(C) 3213/2019), which established that retirement does not bar such promotions.

The Tribunal further cited Union of India v. Dr. Anjum Rizwi (W.P.(C) 5317/2018), Dr. S.K. Murti v. Union of India (2010 SCC Online Del 4779), and the Supreme Court decision in Union of India v. Vinay Kumar (Civil Appeal No. 6359/2016) to affirm that judicial decisions on in-situ promotions override restrictive DoP&T OMs.

The Tribunal noted that the facts of the present case were identical to Naresh C. Dhawan, where the High Court quashed the denial of promotion based on retirement.

The court reasoned that "in-situ" promotions (personal upgrades) differ from "regular" functional promotions; therefore, the DoP&T OMs of 1989 and 1998, which address regular vacancies, do not strictly apply to the Flexible Complementing Scheme meant for Scientists.

The Tribunal observed that since the DAB was supposed to meet while the applicants were in service or to consider their eligibility for a specific panel year, the administrative delay in holding the meeting should not penalize the employees.

It explicitly held that the decisions of the Hon’ble High Court and Supreme Court on this matter prevail over contrary administrative OMs.

It held that superannuation is not a ground to deny in-situ promotion.

The respondents were directed to grant the applicants in-situ promotion from Level S-IV to S-V from the date the DAB was originally supposed to convene, with all consequential benefits (arrears of pay and revised pension) to be processed within three months.