E SRINIVASA RAO vs DEFENCE on 13 October 2026

ORDER

[As per Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member(J)]

1. In the instant O.A. the applicant seeks following relief:- “....to call for the records pertaining to reply dated 31.07.2021 and Minute sheet dated 24/25.08.2021, and set aside the same by declaring the action of the respondents in conducting DPC belatedly resulting in delayed promotion to the applicant from the grade of Construction Supervisor(CS) to Senior Construction Supervisor (SCS) as illegal, arbitrary, and accordingly direct the respondents to revise the promotion order dated 31.05.2021 granting retrospective promotion on notional benefit to the grade of Senior Construction Supervisor w.e.f. 21.01.2017 and grant all consequential benefits which includes notional pay fixation, seniority and other related benefits and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

2.1 Learned counsel for the applicant in the present matter seeks ante-dating of applicant‟s promotion to the post of Sr. Constructor Supervisor, with effect from 01.04.2017, even though he was promoted on 01.06.2021. Learned counsel contends that the delay was caused in the conduct of the DPC for no fault of the applicant. The model calendar issued by the DOPT for conduction of DPC, which is required to be strictly followed, has not been followed by the respondents, thereby resulting in a delayed promotion for the applicant.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents urged that as soon as the applicant became eligible under the Recruitment Rules, his case was considered for promotion. 3.1 It has been highlighted in the counter affidavit that Construction Supervisor is the feeder post for promotion to the post of Senior Construction Supervisor. Further, the individual needs to complete five years of qualifying

ESURU

service in the feeder post. The applicant was promoted to the post of Construction Supervisor (for short “CS”) on 16.03.2013 and completed his qualifying service of five years by 15 Mar 2018. In this regard, as the applicant stated in the OA that his promotion to the post of CS was preponed to 20.01.2012 was provisionally made during Dec 2021, subject to the outcome of WP No.13797 of 2019, which is pending before the Hon'ble High court of Andhra Pradesh in another matter linked with promotions to CS. It is further submitted that, as there were no qualified candidates prior to 2018, the DPC for the post of Senior Construction Supervisor (for short “SCS”) was not conducted. Afterwards, interim stay in OA No. 1083 of 2018, vide order dt. 05.11.2018, was operative and further, the directions of this Tribunal in OA 793 of 2019, were in force, preventing the respondents to proceed with the DPC for promotion to the post of SCS. The applicant is misinterpreting and misleading the Hon'ble Tribunal. It is further submitted that, based on the directives of this Tribunal in favour of grade-wise seniority for the promotion to the post of CS, which was upheld by the Hon‟ble High Court as well as the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, the respondents‟ organization conducted review DPCs for the year 2013 and 2016 to accord grade-wise promotions, in which year-wise panels were considered. During review of DPC of 2013, the applicant‟s seniority was also reviewed and changed and further promotion was accorded notionally from the date approval of earlier DPC proceedings. Further, the applicants in OA Nos. 567/2013 & Batch, were provided opportunity to write DQE for the promotion to SCS. Based on migration from trade-wise seniority to grade-wise seniority, pursuant to which, review DPCs for promotion of CS have been made and thereby, the seniority has become afresh and consequent to this, it was not warranted to show year wise panels in the fresh DPC of 2021 for the post of SCS. Learned counsel

ESURU

further submits that no junior to the applicant was promoted from any anterior dates. 3.2 Accordingly, the DPC was conducted without any delay and promotions were affected w.e.f. 01.06.2021, in which, the applicant was promoted to the post of SCS. 3.3 Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that post huge exercise and hectic procedure, the trade-wise settled seniority, which was maintained since inception of the employees, was made to grade-wise seniority and the draft seniority list for the post of CA-C was promulgated vide DGM HRD Ty memo No.35 of 202 dated 18.02.2021 and after rectifying the discrepancies projected by the personnel, fair seniority list was published vide DGM HRD Ty Memo No.38 of 2021 dated 16.03.2021. Learned counsel has drawn attention to the review DPCs for the years 2013 and 2016 for the post of CS was expedited and promulgated vide DGM HRD Memo No. 41 of 2021 dated 31.03.2021, which reads as under: DGM(HRD) MEMO NO. 41/2021 PUBLICATION OF PROMOTION ORDER FOR PROMOTION TO THE GRADE OF CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISOR

1. Refer to the following:-

(a) M(HRD) Memo No. 03/2013 dated 23 Mar 2013.

(b) M(HRD) Memo No. 07/2016 dated 20 Jun 2016.

(c) DGM(HRD) Memo No. 15/2019 dated 23 Jul 2019.

2. Consequent to the following court orders, the personnel listed in the enclosures are hereby promoted to the grade of Construction Supervisor with effect from the dates mentioned in the enclosures.

(a) Supreme Court of India Order dated 25 Nov 2020 on petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 10490 - 10491/2020.

(b) High Court of AP at Amaravati Order dated 19 Feb 2020 on Writ Petition Filing No. 8871 of 2019 and WP No. 930 of 2020.

ESURU

(d) Central Administrative Tribunal Order dated 06 Dec 2018 in OA Nos. 567/2013, 967/2013, 1067/2013, 1068/2013 and 451/2014.

3. The promotions are subject to the following:- (a) No disciplinary action / punishment / vigilance cases pending / contemplated against any of the individuals in the enclosed list.

(b) Outcome of the verification of caste certificates, where ever applicable.

(c) Outcome of the cases if any, pending in various courts or CAT.

4. Charge Assumption / relinquishment report may be obtained from DGM(SDs) individuals mentioned in the enclosures and the same may be forwarded to DM(SDs) under intimation to this department for further necessary action.

5. The individuals on their promotion are to exercise option within one month as admissible under the provisions of FR 22 (I)(a)(i) as per CDS(RP) rules for fixation of pay in the higher grade.

6. It is requested that the promotion orders be brought to the notice of all concerned individuals.

7. This Promotion order supersedes earlier promotion order published vide Memos referred at Para 1 above.”

3.4. In the panel list for promotion in the ATVP cadre, from the post of Construction Supervisor to Senior Construction Supervisor, the name of the applicant, Mr. E. Srinivasa Rao, Fitter Trade, belonging to the SC category, appears at Sl. No. 21.The name of the applicant was considered in the DPC panel for promotion list dt 29.05.2021.

4.1. In rejoinder to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the applicant would rely upon and submit that the respondents' statement that the DPCs are being conducted regularly for the posts/grades as per vacancies, except for those posts/grades, for which, this Hon'ble Tribunal has specifically directed not to conduct the DPCs is false and misleading. He would submit that there was an interim direction in OA No. 1083/2018, vide its order dated 05.11.2018, the respondents were directed not to conduct the proposed combined DPC till the disposal of the OA Nos.567/13, 967/13,1067/13 and 1068/13, which were earlier reserved for orders. Whereas,

ESURU

the said OAs were disposed of on 06.12.2018 and thereby, stay was in operation for only one month. Further averment of the respondents that due to the pendency of cases in OA Nos.567/13 and Batch, WP No. 8871 of 2019 (filing number) & WP No. 930 of 2020 as well as SLP Nos. 10490 and 10491 of 2020 DPCs could not be conducted, is also misleading. Except for stay by this Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No. 1083/2018 barely for one-month, there was no stay order from any of the courts for not conducting the DPCs in the aforementioned court cases. But, the respondents didn't give any bona-fide reasons for not conducting the DPC to the grade of SCS before 05.11.2018 and after 06.12.2018 (period between the dates, there was a stay direction) due for the years i.e. 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020. As per the revised model calendar issued by the DOP&T vide OM dated 08.05.2017, the DPC is required to be held between 15 April- 31 August 2018 for the vacancy year 2018, to which, the crucial date of determination of eligibility was 01.04.2018 for the year 2018, by which date, the applicant got eligibility by 15.03.2018. The said model calendar has not been followed by the respondents, and thereby, the applicant has suffered irreparable loss in terms of seniority, status, pay & allowances, and eligibility for residency for the next promotion, i.e. Technical Officer-A. The reasons given for not holding DPCs in time are not justifiable in terms of the several judgments and therefore, the averments of the respondents do not merit consideration. 4.2 Some of the case laws/judgments which are relied upon by the applicant‟s counsel are:-

a) CAT, Ernakulam Bench in O.A. No. 1142/2012, order dt. 21st June, 2013.

b) Hon‟ble Delhi High Court, at New Delhi in WP (C) No. 7416/2015, order dt. 15 May, 2018.

ESURU

c) Hon‟ble High Court of Manipur, at Imphal in WP(C) No. 592 of 2021 order dt. 26 May 2022.

d) Hon‟ble High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in WP No.24453 of 2016, order dt. 13 Dec, 2024.

4.3. Learned counsel for applicant has drawn our attention to the order of the Hon'ble Manipur High Court, dated 26.05.2022 in WP(C) No. 592 of 2021, wherein, it has been held that "xxx The only reason cited by the respondent authorities is that in view of the pendency of the writ petitions, the delay of all promotion process of all subordinate rank officers occurred cannot be accepted since the respondent authorities have failed to produce any material to show that there was an order of the Court not to fill up vacancies by promotion and also conduction of DPC and that is why they have not conducted the DPC in time".

4.4. Learned counsel submits that similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in W.P. No.11337 of 2012, vide order dated 23.04.2012.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the case as well as case laws cited by both sides.

6.

ANALYSIS

6.1 The primary question to be addressed in this case is whether an employee is entitled to a retrospective promotion on a notional basis when the respondents fail to comply with the Department of Personnel and Training's (DOPT) Model Calendar concerning the scheduling of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meetings. 6.2 In the current case, the applicant expresses dissatisfaction regarding his promotion to Senior Construction Supervisor. He contends that although he met

ESURU

the eligibility requirements starting from January 20, 2017, and vacancies were available, his promotion was deferred until June 1, 2021, due to postponements in convening the Departmental Promotion Committees (DPCs). Consequently, he asserts a claim for retrospective promotion on a notional basis. 6.3 Our attention is drawn to the Model Calendar for conduct of DPC prescribed vide DOPT OM dt. 08.05.2017. The present case being a non-ACC case, the relevant calendar is reproduced as under: “B. Non-ACC cases: S. No. Events Transitional year (01.04.2018 to 31.12.2018) Calendar- year based

Vacancy year 2018-19

Crucial date for determining eligibility 01 April, 2018

January,

01 January,

Compilation of ACRs/ Integrity Certificates/ Vigilance clearance/ Seniority List/ Penalty and Vacancy position etc., and forwarding DPC proposal April – July

January – April, 2017 January – April, 2018

Last date for sending complete proposal along with relevant Recruitment/ Service Rules to the DPC. (Effort should be made to send the proposal to the DPC as soon as possible without waiting for the last date) 31 July 2017 30 April

30 April 2018

DPC to be held August, 2017 – January, 2018 May – October,

May – October, 2018

On receipt of DPC minutes, post-DPC follow-up action (including approval of the Competent Authority) by the administrative Ministry/ Department February – March, 2018 November– December,

November– December,

Last date for getting ready the approved select panel by the administrative Ministry/ Department 31 March, 2018

December,

31 December,

ESURU

Note: Dates/ periods suggested in the Model Calendar for DPCs put no bar on either completion of various pre-post DPC related actions. Every effort may, for such, be made for taking speedy action in the matter without waiting for the last date or completion of the period as suggested by the Model Calendar for DPCs.”

6.4 On behalf of the applicant, it was contended that according to the aforementioned model calendar, the DPC for the 2018 vacancy year should have been conducted between April 15, 2018 and August 2018. Furthermore, it was argued that the critical date for establishing eligibility was 01.04.2018; by this specific deadline, the applicant had already met the necessary eligibility requirements, yet the process was not carried out. 6.5 There is no denying that the learned counsel for the applicant is correct in his assertion and reliance on the cited legal precedents. These cases establish the guidelines and proper instructions, for instances, where the DPC model calendar, as mandated by the DOPT, is not followed, suggesting that notional promotion should be granted under specific conditions. Such rulings emphasize the importance of conducting DPC meetings punctually and reviewing cases periodically. Nevertheless, whether these principles bolster the applicant's specific claim must be determined by analyzing the unique facts and circumstances of the present matter. It is important to observe that the directions issued by this Tribunal in OA No. 793/2019, through the order dated 09.09.2019, remain undisputed and, are as follows: “5. The applicants may have become eligible for promotion. The fact, however, remains that though the respondents willing to convene a DPC, they were prevented on account of the interim order passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 1083/2018, dated 05.11.2018. A reference was also made to OA No.567/2013 & batch. Though it is a fact that the OA No. 567/2013 & batch have been disposed of, pendency of the Writ Petition needs to be taken into account.

ESURU

6. We are of the view that the respondents need to convene a DPC as and when a clear picture emerges in the Writ Petition filed against the orders in OA No. 567/2013 & batch.

7. The OA is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.”

Thus, this Tribunal has already taken note of the fact, in its order dt. 09.09.2019 in OA No. 793/2019, filed by the present applicant and another official, that the respondents were prevented from convening the DPC on account of the interim order passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 1083/2018, dt. 05.11.2018. Learned counsel for the applicant has not produced any material to show that the order of this Tribunal in OA No. 793/2019 has been modified or reversed by any higher forum. 6.6 We have also perused the said interim order, which reads as under: “xxxx Conducting any such combined DPC will create irreparable loss and litigation among the employees. Therefore, the respondents are directed not to conduct proposed combined DPC till the disposal of the aforementioned OAs.” 6.7 On a conjoint reading of the above orders, it is clear that the respondents were given liberty to convene a DPC as and when a clear picture emerges in the Writ Petition(s) filed against the orders in OA No. 567/2013 & batch. WP No.8871/2019 (Filing Number) and WP No. 930/2020, filed by the respondents herein against the order in OA No. 567/2013 & batch were dismissed on 19.02.2020 and the SLP filed against the same was also dismissed on 25.11.2020. Therefore, perhaps, it cannot be said that a clear picture emerged in the matter till the disposal of the SLP on 25.11.2020. Furthermore, in view of the interim order in OA No. 1083/2018 and the orders in OA No. 793/2019 and the other OAs, no fault can be found with the action of the respondents when the issue of seniority was sub judice.

ESURU

6.8 The applicant's central argument rests on the assumption that no obstacles existed prior to January 1, 2018, as there were no interim stays preventing the respondents from holding a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). Nevertheless, it is significant that OA No. 567/2013 and related cases, which sought promotions for Construction Supervisors based on grade-wise seniority, were still under adjudication. This litigation was eventually resolved by this Tribunal on December 6, 2018, with subsequent affirmations from the Hon‟ble High Court on February 19, 2020, and the Hon‟ble Supreme Court on November 25, 2020. The matter remained unresolved from 2013 until these final judicial determinations. The convening of a DPC was hindered by the necessity to establish proper seniority lists following those rulings, which was a prerequisite for identifying eligible candidates for promotion. Consequently, the applicant‟s claim that there were no barriers to conducting a DPC before November 5, 2018, is inaccurate. 6.9 It is an acknowledged fact that no official junior to the petitioner received a promotion before the specified date. Having accepted and benefited from the advancement to the SCS position, the applicant is precluded from later demanding a retroactive notional promotion. While he possesses the right to be considered for advancement, the mere existence of vacancies does not, in itself, grant him a legal entitlement to claim a retrospective notional promotion as an individual right. The evidence indicates that the applicant's promotion occurred in 2013, meaning he would only complete the necessary five-year service period in 2018, as argued by the respondents. Consequently, the applicant's request for a promotion effective from 21.01.2017 is based on a misunderstanding of the requirements. 6.10 It is also noticed that CP No. 41/2020 in OA No. 793/2019, filed by the applicant, came to be closed on 14.03.2024. It is also noticed that as per the DOPT OM dt. 10.04.1989, „the promotion of officers included in the panel would be regular

ESURU

from the date of validity of the panel or the date of their actual promotion, whichever is later. 6.11 Furthermore, it is an established legal principle that promotions are typically effective from a future date and cannot be backdated solely based on DOPT instructions. Such guidelines are generally only enforceable in instances where there has been a manifest breach of the specific mandates or rules cited by the claimant. It must also be considered that awarding a retrospective promotion to the applicant would create a ripple effect, disrupting long-standing administrative arrangements and impacting subsequent promotional cycles involving the vested interests of other members within the same cadre.

7.

CONCLUSION

In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the OA, and the OA is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed. No order as to costs.

(VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI)

(MANISH GARG) MEMBER (ADMN.)

MEMBER (JUDL.)

am/evr

ESURU