BALDEVBHAI M AMIN vs All India Radio on 5 October 2026

ORDER

Per Dr. Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)

The applicant being aggrieved by inaction of the respondents in not conducting Departmental Promotional Committee meeting for promotion of the applicant from the post of Transmission Executive (TREX) to Programme Executive (PEx), the applicant has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and sought following reliefs:- “(A). The Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to declare the action on the part of the respondent authorities in not conducting the Departmental Promotion Committee as per the instructions issued by the Department of Personnel and Training and Chief Executive Officer, Prasar Bharati and thereby denying legitimate promotion to the applicant to the post of Programme Executive is illegal arbitrary unconstitutional and contrary to settled legal position and against the principles of natural justice. (B) Be pleased to direct the respondents to convene regular Departmental Promotion Committee for the purpose of promotion to the post of Programme Executive forthwith and award all consequential benefits from the date the vacancies were available. (C). Be pleased to allow this petition with costs and be pleased to quantify the cost. (D). Be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs as may be deemed just and proper by the Hon'ble Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Brief facts of the case are as under :- 2.1 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant being declared surplus was absorbed as Transmission Executive in the scale of Rs.1400-2600 with effect from 30.09.1992, since then he was working as Transmission Executive honestly, sincerely and to the best of his ability. Further on the acceptance of recommendations of Sixth Central P ANUKUMA

3 OA No.187/2013

Pay Commission's report, the pay of the applicant was revised in the PB- II grade pay of Rs.4600/- and subsequently, he was given the benefits of MACP in the grade pay of Rs.4800/-. He further submitted that had he been given promotion to the post of Programme Executive, his grade pay would have been fixed at Rs.5400/-. In order to submit the proper representation, the applicant sought information under Right to Information Act from the respondent authorities with respect of number of employees, who were promoted to the post of Programme Executives on reservation basis as well as against the physically handicapped category. 2.2 In response to the above, the respondents supplying information about the number of persons who were promoted against SC quota vide communication dated 12.10.2007 and also informed that as per roster point as well as reservation points, there is no quota for the physically handicapped persons in Group B posts. Subsequently, the applicant submitted a representation on 25.10.2007 stating the exact number of physically handicapped candidates from general category, who have been promoted to the post of Programme Executives from the post of Transmission Executives. Thereafter, he submitted representations on 06.04.2005 to 30.09.2006 requesting to grant the benefit of first ACP on completion of 12 years of service or alternatively to promote him from the post of Transmission Executive to Programme Executive. Moreover, the applicant is suffering 40% disability, therefore, which is entitled to the benefit available to a physically handicapped person in addition to the benefits available to Scheduled Caste category. When, he had not received any response from the respondent authorities, he again made P ANUKUMA

4 OA No.187/2013

representation on 14.12.2006 to the Director General, All India Radio requesting him to consider his case for promotion to the post of Programme Executive. 2.3 The respondent authorities also published and circulated the draft seniority list of Transmission Executives on 08.01.2007 wherein it was stated that there was no promotion quota under physical handicap quota. Consequently, the applicant made representation on 31.01.2007 requesting competent authority to consider his case for promotion under physical handicap category since he was the only candidate in that category at the relevant point of time. In response to the above representation, the respondent namely Deputy Director, Administration vide his letter dated 22.05.2008 informed that the DPC was convened as per law and consequently some 257 Transmission Executives were granted promotion to the post of Programme Executives. Finally, the respondents informed about the convening of the Departmental Promotional Committee vide letter dated 08.10.2012 for regular promotion to the grade of Programme Executive from its feeder cadre. Since the applicant was languishing for promotion and his date of superannuation was near, he made further representation on 29.01.2013 as his name appears at serial No.410 requesting his case for promotion may be considered expeditiously. Subsequently, he was again made representation on 05.03.2013 which also forwarded to the competent authority vide communication dated 11.03.2013. 2.4 The applicant also referred promotion of employees from the cadre of Stenographer & Librarian promoted, who were not forming by any stretch of imagination as a feeder cadre for being promoted to the P ANUKUMA

5 OA No.187/2013

post of Programme Executives, therefore, the respondents have violated the basic rules of promotion. The applicant also approached the Liaisons Officer SC/ST Cell, DDG (Engg), DG AIR, Akashvani Bhavan, New Delhi for redressal of his grievances. It is also pertinent to note that the applicant being a Government employee on deemed deputation to the Prasar Bharati and is therefore entitled to all government benefits, which had also been amply clarified vide circular dated 16.03.2011 of the organisation. 2.5 The applicant also referred the basic rule of promotion as he had spent more than 22 years of service as Transmission Executive, whereas the minimum length of service for promotion from Transmission Executive to Programme Executive required is 8 years and from Programme Executive to the post of Assistant Station Director the length of service required is five years and five years as Assistant Station Director for promotion to the post of Station Director. Therefore, on the basis of the above fact, it is evident that had the DPCs met timely and regularly, the applicant would have been promoted to the post of Programme Executive. He also referred the case of DG AIR Shri L. D. Mandloi, wherein he had been promoted to the lower post to DG. He further supported his arguments by stating that the persons who were recruited in the year 1994 had been promoted to the post of Programme Executive whereas he had been appointed in the year 1992 still he was languishing as Transmission Executive. Therefore, there is merit in his application, hence, the same may be allowed on the following grounds. 2.6 The action on the part of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and colourable exercise of power in rejecting the claim of the applicant P ANUKUMA

6 OA No.187/2013

without assigning any reasons. Learned counsel for the applicant also referred to the OMs of the DoPT issued from time to time particularly OM dated 21.09.2006 wherein emphasis was given to conduct the DPC on regular basis. He referred the Para 2 of the said OM, which reads as under:- "delay in filling the promotional vacancies adversely affects the functioning of government, therefore, it is reiterated that the clarification/modification as contained in the above mentioned OM dated 8-9-1998 may be given wide circulation and strict compliance." He also referred the para 4 of the OM dated 11.03.2011, which states as under:- “4. Non adherence to time frame of DPCs is a matter of serious concern to the Government Hence all concerned cadre controlling authorities are once again counselled to ensure strict adherence to the model calendar for the DPCS as circulated vide this Department's OM dated 8-9-1998. Whenever DPCs are yet to be held for the vacancies arising in the year 2011-2012 the same maybe completed by 31-3-2011 and for future vacancy years the time frame referred to in Para 2 above may be strictly complied with". Similar position was also reiterated in the OM dated 06.08.2012, wherein it is stated as follows:- "4. These undesirable trends negate the very purpose of model calendar for DPC's prescribed vide this Department's OM NO. 22011/9/1998-Estt (D) dated September 8,1998 Delay in holding DPCs not only affect the manpower planning in various Ministries/Departments but also impedes the career progression across the board and is the main reason for litigation before CAT and various High Court." P ANUKUMA

7 OA No.187/2013

2.7 Therefore, from bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions laid down by the Department of Personnel and Training reveals that the respondents authorities, apart from not paying any heed to the grievances sought to be ventilated by the applicant, have been clearly flouting the aforesaid instructions issued by the Department of Personnel and Training without any reason and rhyme. He also relied upon the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. O.Z. Hussain vs. Union of India (AIR 1990 SC 311), CSIR vs. K.G.S.Bhatt (AIR 1989 SC 1972) and also in Sh. Ragunath Prasad Singh vs. Secretary, Ministry of Home affairs (AIR 1988 SC 103), wherein it has been held that regular promotion not only gives a moral boost to the employee concerned but is also in the interest of the administration. In the instant case the fact cannot be ignored that the office of respondent authorities is playing with the career of the applicant which cannot be permitted to sustain in the eye of law. 2.8 He also referred the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Anr. Vs Hemraj Singh Chauhan and ors AIR 2010 SC 1682 on the point of inaction on the part of the respondent wherein it has been held that inaction on the part of the respondent authorities deprives the applicant’s fundamental right of fair consideration in the matter of promotion and, therefore, the respondent authorities are required to be appropriately directed. Finally, he submitted that if he retires in the same cadre of Transmission Executive without promotion he is going to get pensionary benefit in the PB-II grade pay of Rs.4800/-, however, if he get promotion to the post of Programme Executive, he would get pensionary benefit on the basis of PB II grade pay of Rs.5400/-. P ANUKUMA

8 OA No.187/2013

Therefore, it will not only affect him financially but would also affect the status of the employee as he would retire as Group-C employee if he is in the cadre of Transmission Executive otherwise he would retire as Group-B/Gazetted Officer if he retired as a Programme Executive. Therefore, under such circumstances, balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant and hence his prayer should be considered and he should be given promotion to the post of Programme Executive from retrospective date.

3. E-converso, the respondents filed reply wherein they have denied the averments made by the applicant in the OA and further submitted that the present OA was filed purportedly aggrieved by the action on the part of the respondent authority for not conducting timely DPC for promotion to the post of Programme Executive and therein denying the legitimate promotion due to the applicant. The applicant further sought to direct the respondents to convene the regular DPC for the purpose of promotion to the post of Programme Executive. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the promotion on the recommendation of DPC on 31.07.2009 from the post of Production Assistants to Programme Executives were given on ad hoc basis only against the available vacancies in Direct Recruitment Quota. However, no regular promotion to the post of Programme Executive could be granted after 10.12.2008 on account of operation of stay issued by the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in SWP No.1448/2008. Moreover, as per the statement of the applicant in the combined seniority list of TREXs, the applicant was figuring at serial no.410, therefore, 409 TREXs were senior to him to be promoted to the post of P ANUKUMA

9 OA No.187/2013

Programme Executives. Additionally, the applicant has filed the present OA at the fag end of his service and the applicant had already retired on attaining the age of superannuation. 3.1 The applicant had not filed any rejoinder, therefore, the present OA was disposed of on 23.11.2016 for non prosecution by this Tribunal. However, the applicant filed MA No.444/2025 for restoration of OA along with MA No.445 of 2025 for condonation of delay in filing the restoration of application. The said MAs were allowed by this Hon’ble Tribunal vide order dated 30.07.2026. The applicant has not chosen to file rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents in the OA. She further submitted that the employee may have a right to be considered for promotion, but no vested right to be promoted. She also referred the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Government of West Bengal vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors, in Civil Appeal decided on 27.11.2024 for conducting the DPC with reference to the retired Government servant, however, in order to comply with the ex parte order passed by this Tribunal on 28.05.2013 directing to hold the DPC within four months, the said order was served upon the respondents after the retirement of the applicant herein. Accordingly, a DPC was convened and because the applicant had already retired, he could not be considered for promotion. The respondents also assailed on the point of limitation for seeking promotion to the post of Programme Executive wherein the cause arose, according to the statement of the applicant in the year way back 2006 and he has preferred the present OA on 27.05.2013, which is delayed by more than 7 years. However, he had not filed any application for condonation of delay rather he had P ANUKUMA

10 OA No.187/2013

mentioned under the head ‘limitation’ that the petition is filed within the period of limitation and is not barred by delay and laches. Therefore, she prayed that the OA is not only barred by unexplained huge delay of 7 years, but is completely meritless and inasmuch as the applicant’s case could not be considered for promotion as he was standing at serial no.410 in the seniority list and moreover his case could not be considered for promotion to the post of Programme Executive as he had already been retired before the date of holding the subsequent DPC.

4. Both the parties have filed written submissions, which were taken on record.

5. The applicant reiterated the averments made in the OA and referred the DOPT’s OM dated 14.11.2014 that promotion and promotional benefits can be allowed even after the retirement of the government employees. In this regard, he referred para 1 to 4 of the aforementioned OM, which states as follows:- “1. The undersigned is directed to invite reference to the Department of Personnel and Training Office Memorandum No. 22011/4/98-Estt(D) dated October 12, 1998 regarding consideration of retired employees who were within the zone of consideration in the relevant year(s) but are not actually in service when the DPC is being held. The said OM provides as follows:- There is no specific bar in the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated April 10, 1989 or any other related instructions of the Department of Personnel and Training for consideration of retired employees, while preparing year-wise panel(s), who were within the zone of consideration in the relevant year(s). According to legal opinion also it would not be in order if eligible employees, who were within the zone of consideration for the relevant year(s) but are not actually in service when the DPC is being held, are not considered while preparing yearwise zone of consideration/panel and, consequently, their juniors are considered (in their places), who would not have been in the zone of consideration if the DPC(s) had been held in time. This is considered imperative to identify the correct zone of consideration for relevant Year(s). Names of the P ANUKUMA

11 OA No.187/2013

retired officials may also be included in the panel(s). Such retired officials would, however, have no right for actual promotion. The DPC(s) may, if need be, prepare extended panel(s) following the principles prescribed in the Department of Personnel and Training Office Memorandum No.22011/8/87-Estt. (D) dated April 9, 1996."

2. Appointment Committee of Cabinet has observed that DPCs often do not consider such eligible officers who are retiring before the occurrence of the vacancy in the panel year. These undesirable trends negate the very purpose of the above said Office Memorandum No. 22011/4/98-Estt(D) dated October 12, 1998 and it is also against the principle of natural justice.

3. All the Ministries/Departments are therefore advised to ensure strict compliance of the instructions of the Department of Personnel & Training issued vide this Department's OM No. 22011/4/98-Estt(D) dated October 12, 1998.

4. These instructions may please be brought out to the notice of all concerned including attached and subordinate offices." 5.1 He also submitted the reason for delay in filing the OA for conducting the DPC. The applicant reiterated that the interim order passed by this Tribunal dated 28.05.2013, wherein it is stated that in the circumstances and in the light of the records available before me, I am of the view that there should be an interim order directing the respondents to convene a DPC within four months from today, if such DPC has not been convened for the past 8 and half months and in that even the case of the applicant shall be considered for promotion by the DPC so convened irrespective of the fat that he is retiring on 31st May, 2013. It is made clear that AMR-the decision of the DPC and the consequent implementation thereof shall be subject to the final decision of this OA. Consequently, the DPC was convened in October-November, 2013, but facts were not made aware to the applicant herein. He also referred some cases wherein undisputedly it is proved that the DG AIR Prasar Bharti had given promotion even after their retirement till 2024. Therefore, on P ANUKUMA

12 OA No.187/2013

the basis of above, he requested that his case deserves merit and the same may be allowed.

6. Per contra, the respondents also filed their written submission wherein they have reiterated the averments made in the reply to the OA and further submits that the regular DPC for promotion from the post of Transgression Executive to Programme Executive could not held on account of operation of stay issued by the Hon'ble High Court of J&K in SWP No.1448/2009. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal (Diary No.43488 of 2013) Government of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors. decided on 27.11.2024, wherein it is held in as under:- “21. While we recognize respondent No.1's right to be considered for promotion, which is a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India, he does not hold an absolute right to the promotion itself. The legal precedents discussed above establish that promotion only becomes effective upon the assumption of duties on the promotional post and not on the date of occurrence of the vacancy or the date of recommendation. Considering that respondent No. 1 superannuated before his promotion was effectuated, he is not entitled to retrospective financial benefits associated to the promotional post of Chief Scientific Officer, as he did not serve in that capacity.

22. As a result of the above discussion, the judgment dated 1 February, 2023 passed by the High Court of Calcutta and the judgment dated 26th June, 2019 passed by the Tribunal are unsustainable in the eyes of law and are hereby reversed and set aside.”

7. Heard both the learned counsel in length and perused the contextual guidelines and material available on record. It is undisputedly admitted fact that the applicant was appointed as a Transmission Executive in the year 1992. It is also evident that he had not been given any promotion rather he was given benefit of ACP and MACP and after P ANUKUMA

13 OA No.187/2013

attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service in the PB grade pay of Rs.4600/-. 7.1 The main grievance of the applicant is that the respondent authority had not conducted any regular DPC since 2008, therefore, he could not get promotion from the post of Transmission Executive to Programme Executive before his superannuation. Therefore, he prayed in this OA that he may be considered for promotion on the post of Programme Executive retrospectively, whereas the stand taken by the respondents is that the applicant stand at serial no.410 in the seniority list, therefore, the number of Transmission Executive, which are 409 in number are waiting for promotion before the applicant. 7.2 It is seen that the respondents have not convened the DPC because there was a stay from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in SLP No.1448 of 2009 since 10.12.2008. This contention had not been denied or countered by the applicant herein. Therefore, it is admitted fact that due to operation of stay by the Hon'ble High Court of J&K, the promotion from the post of Transmission Executive to Programme Executive could not be made. Moreover, it is rather stated by the applicant that in the seniority list, he stands at serial no.410. Therefore, it is not clear that under what circumstances, the right of applicant to be considered for promotion was jeopardised because of non-convening the DPC in time. Moreover, the applicant retired on 31.05.2013, therefore, as per settled law and the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors. Civil Appeal (Diary No.43488 of 2013), promotion only becomes effective upon the assumption of duties of higher P ANUKUMA

14 OA No.187/2013

responsibilities on promotional post and not on the date of occurrence of the vacancy or the date of recommendation. 7.3 In the present case also, the applicant be retired from the service before the DPC was convened. We find force in the arguments of learned counsel for the respondents that in compliance of the interim order dated 28.05.2013, the respondents convened the DPC in September/October, 2016 but the name of the applicant was not considered as he had already superannuated at that point of time. Therefore, promotion cannot be given retrospectively without assumption of duties for the higher post and higher responsibility. 7.4 In view of the above, in our considered opinion, there is no merit in the case of the applicant herein. Hence, The OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.

(Dr. HUKUM SINGH MEENA) (RAMESHWAR VYAS) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Rss P ANUKUMA