P BABU RAO vs M/o Defence on 12 October 2026

ORAL ORDER

(As per Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Judicial Member)

The instant O.A. has been filed by the applicant, seeking the following relief: “Hence, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal in the interests of justice may be pleased to call for the records pertaining to the panel for promotion to the grade of Assistant Naval Store Officer-I for the years 2014-15, 2015-16 vide proceedings No.CP(G) 4005/ANSO-I/ DPC/2014-15-16 dated

January, and consequential promotion orders No.CP (G) 4005/ANSO- I/DPC/2014-15-16 dated 4th Feb, 2016 issued by the 2nd Respondent and by declaring the same as arbitrary, illegal, tainted with malice and violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, direct the Respondents to consider the notional promotion of the Applicant against the vacancies for the year 2014-15 that have arisen prior to his retirement on 31.05.2015 with all consequential benefits and pass such other and further order or orders as are deemed fit and proper by this Hon’ble Tribunal in the circumstances of the case.”

2(i). Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant drew our attention to the fact that the applicant, who was initially appointed as Store Keeper on 15.12.1986 and later promoted to the grade of Assistant Naval Stores Officer Grade-II (ANSO-II) in June 2011, retired on superannuation on 31.05.2015. He was empanelled for promotion to the grade of Assistant Naval Stores Officer Grade-I (ANSO-I) for the year 2015-2016, vide letter dated 29.01.2016, i.e., after his retirement. There was a delay on the part of the DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor,

Location:

respondents in conducting the DPC, which was held only on 05.01.2016, i.e., post his retirement, and which considered the vacancies of 2014-2015 and 2015- 2016 together, in violation of the DoPT Model Calendar, which reads as under: SUGGESTED MODEL CALENDAR FOR DPCs EVENTS FINANCIAL YEAR-BASED CALENDAR YEAR-BASED

(i) Vacancy year 2000-2001

(ii) Crucial date for determining eligibility January 1, 2000 January 1, 2000 ACC CASES [Cases where ACC approval is required (including SAG/HAG grades/posts)] (A) Completion of ACRs/Integrity Certificates/ Vigilance clearance/Seniority List/Penalty and Vacancy position etc and forwarding DPC proposal to the UPSC. April – July 15,

January – April 15, 1999 (B) Last date for sending complete proposal along with relevant Recruitment/Service Rules to the UPSC. (Effort should be made to send the proposal to the UPSC as soon as possible without waiting for the last date). July 15, 1999 April 15, 1999 (C) DPC to be held July 15, -- November, 1999 April

– August, 1999 (D) On receipt of DPC minutes from the UPSC, post-DPC follow-up action by the administrative Ministry/Department. December, 1999 September, 1999 (E) Approval of the ACC including communication of its approval to the administrative Ministry/ Department. January – March,

October – December, 1999 (F) Last date for getting ready the approved select panel by the administrative Ministry/Department. March 31, 2000 December 31,

NOTE:-Dates/periods suggested in the Model Calendar for DPC put no bar on earlier completion of various pre/post-DPC related actions. Every effort may, as 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. Non-ACC CASES [Other grades/posts (with/without association of the UPSC)] DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor,

Location:

EVENTS

FINANCIAL YEAR-BASED

CALENDAR YEAR-BASED

(C) DPC to be held August, 1999 – January, 2000 May – October,

(D) On receipt of DPC minutes from the UPSC, post-DPC follow-up action (including approval of the Competent Authority) by the administrative Ministry/Department. February – March, 2000 November – December, 1999 (E) Last date for getting ready the approved select panel by the administrative Ministry/Department. March 31, 2000 December 31,

NOTE:-Dates/periods suggested in the Model Calendar for DPC put no bar on earlier completion of various pre/post-DPC related actions. Every effort may, as 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 DPC.

2(ii). Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that though, under the Rules, the applicant was eligible for consideration for 2014-15 as he had completed the eligible service and was in the seniority list, he does not dispute that he was empanelled for the year 2015-16 only for the purpose of notional promotion. He further submits that, in an identical situation, one Mr. USVVN Raju, who had also superannuated on 31.05.2015 and who had filed OA No.335/2016, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 23.12.2024 with the following directions: “11. In the instant case, the applicant has taken a categorical plea that 5 vacancies had arisen in 2014-15 and he stood at Sl. No.2 in the seniority list of the ANSOs-II, circulated by the Integrated HQs (Navy), New Delhi, vide letter dt. 15.01.2015. We have perused the said seniority list, and the applicant stands at Sl.No.2. Despite the said assertion of the applicant about the availabilty of 5 vacancies in 2014- 15, the respondents have not denied the same. The respondents have also admitted that the DPCs are to be conducted as per the prescribed DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor,

Location:

time schedule given in the Model Calendar. It is seen that from the very same seniority list, Sri A Ramamurhty, who is at Sl. No.1, was promoted pursuant to the DPC, held on 01.05.2016. Therefore, had the DPC been conducted in time, the applicant would have been considered for promotion. Hence, the impugned action of the respondents is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for notional promotion against the vacancies for the year 2014-15, with all consequential benefits, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.”

2(iii). Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that Mr. USVVN Raju was empanelled for the year 2014-15, as reflected at page 5 of the paper book, whereas the applicant herein was in the zone of consideration and was empanelled for the year 2015-16. 3(i). Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the averments contained in the counter affidavit and submits that in accordance with SRO 32/2009 for the post of ANSO-I “Assistant Naval Store Officer Grade II with 03 years’ service in the grade rendered after appointment thereto on a regular basis will be eligible for promotion. As the applicant has not completed minimum eligibility service on crucial date of DPC i.e. 01st Apr 2014, he was not eligible for consideration for promotion to the grade of ANSO-I in the DPC year 2014-15. However, DPC for the grade of ANSO-I for the year 2014-15 for 04 vacancies and 2015-16 for 04 vacancies (including 03 carry forward vacancies) was conducted by UPSC on 05 Jan 16. There were only 02 officers eligible for promotion during the DPC year 2014-15. The applicant alongwith other officers were empanelled for promotion for the year 2015-16 vide IHQ/MoD(N) letter CP(G)/4005/ANSO-I/DPC/2014-15-16 dated 29 Jan 2016. As the applicant was retired on 31 May 2015, he was not promoted to the DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor,

Location:

grade of ANSO-I vide promotion order dated 04 Feb 2016, since retired before the date of empanelment i.e. 31 May 2015. As per DoP&T OM No. 22011/4/98- Estt(D) dated 12 Oct 1998 and DoP&T OM No. 22011/1/2014-Estt(D) dated 14 Nov 2014 name of the retired officer may be included in the panel, such retired officials would however, have no right for actual promotion. It is further submitted that, as per extant guidelines, promotion shall take effect only upon assumption of charge by the incumbent officer, subsequent to issue of empanelment and promotion orders. 3(ii). Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that there is no denial of the fact as per the model calendar issued vide DoP&T OM No. 22011/9/98-Estt(D) dated 8th September 1998. DPCs are to be conducted as per the prescribed time schedule. However, DPC for the year 2014-2015 and 2015-16 could not be conducted in time due to pre-requisite formalities of DPC. The DPC for the year 2013-14 was delayed due to process of incorporation of mandatory requirement of disposal of below benchmark grading in accordance with DoP&T OM NO. 21011/1/2010-Estt(A) dated 13 Apr 2010 (Annexure-R6). As per the subject OM below benchmarks grading of ACR are required to be communicated to the officer reported upon, representations are to be communicated to the officer reported upon, representation are to be obtained and disposed off before considering the ACR for promotion. Considerable time was elapsed in the process of seeking representation and disposal action of below benchmark grading in respect of Shri AP Wadkar, who was an eligible candidate for the DPC year 2013-14. The DPC thus delayed and the panel could be issued on 01 Dec 2014 vide IHQ/MoD(N) letter CP(G)/2005/ANSO-I/DPC dated 01 Dec 2014(Annexure –R7). This delay has made cascading effect on the time schedule of the DPC for the year 2014-15. In order to avoid further delay of DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor,

Location:

future DPCs, the case for DPC 2014-15 and 2015-16 was processed together which was finally concluded on 05.01.2016. Although, the applicant was empanelled for promotion vide IHQ/MoD(N) letter CP(G)/4005/ANSO- I/DPC/204-15-16 dated 29th January 2016, he was not promoted to the grade of ANSO-I since retired before the date of empanelment i.e. 31st May, 2015, in accordance with DoP&T OM NO. 22011/4/98/Estt(D) dated 12th October 1998 and OM No. 22011/2014-Estt(D) dated 14th November, 2014. 3(iii). It has also been highlighted that the applicant had not completed the minimum eligibility service as on the crucial date of DPC, i.e., 01.04.2014, for promotion to the grade of ANSO-I.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

5. We are of the considered view that there is no denial in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents of the fact that the name of the applicant was under the zone of consideration for the year 2015-16, and that the DPC could not be conducted in time due to pre-requisite formalities of DPC. The DPC for the years 2014-15 & 2015-16 was conducted only on 05.01.2016, by which time the applicant had already superannuated. It is also noted that the respondents failed to adopt the Model Calendar and, had the DPC been conducted on 05.01.2015, the situation would have been different altogether, as the applicant would have been in the zone of consideration while preparing the panel for the select list. Since the name of the applicant appeared in the zone of consideration, reference is drawn to the DoPT O.M. dated 14.11.2014, followed by another O.M. dated 25.01.2016. Availability of vacancies at the relevant point of time is not denied. No plausible explanation is coming from the respondents as to why the applicant’s case, even though under the zone of consideration, was not DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor,

Location:

considered at the appropriate time/ from time to time vis-à-vis the conduct of DPC. In an identical situation, the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, in Civil Writ Petition No.14372-2018 in Satya Narayan and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. observed on 24 March, 2026 as under: “(12). It is not in dispute that the petitioners were eligible and within the zone of consideration for the vacancy year 2013-14 and that the DPC, when ultimately convened, found them fit for promotion. It is equally not disputed that the delay in holding the DPC for 2013-14 was not attributable to the petitioners but arose because the department chose to halt the promotion process in view of the ongoing litigation and interim orders regarding merger/demerger and combined seniority. Once this position is accepted, the petitioners' grievance is not for grant of promotion in preference to others, but for restoration of an accrued right which stood deferred solely due to administrative and judicial contingencies beyond their control. (13). The respondents' reliance on the OM dated 14.11.2014 to deny even notional promotion appears, on a proper reading of that OM along with earlier and subsequent instructions, to be misplaced. The OM of 14.11.2014 was issued in the backdrop of earlier DoP&T instructions which mandated preparation of year-wise panels and avoidance of clubbing of vacancies, and it clarified that there is no bar to consideration of retired employees, who were within the zone of consideration for the relevant year, while preparing the panel. It further provided that such retired employees would have no right to "actual promotion". The emphasis of the OM is on ensuring that, for the purpose of determining the correct zone of consideration and for preventing juniors from stealing a march over seniors due to delayed DPCs, the names of retired officials must be included in the panel. Where retired employees are included in the panel only for that limited purpose, it is understandable that they cannot claim to be posted to the promoted post or to receive full back wages after cessation of service. (14). However, the situation in which an employee is denied promotion during service due to factors completely foreign to his conduct or eligibility, and where delay in convening DPCs results in his retirement DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor,

Location:

before the panel is finalized, stands on a different footing. In such cases, courts have consistently recognized the doctrine of deemed or notional promotion to prevent violation of Articles 14 and 16 and to ensure that an employee is not penalized for administrative lapses or external events such as imposition of election code of conduct. (15). In Nirmal Singh's case (supra), this Court, confronted with a case where the promotion of the petitioner had been duly approved but not implemented solely because the election code of conduct intervened before issuance of the formal order, held that the petitioner could not be made to suffer for such fortuitous circumstance and granted him deemed promotion with all consequential benefits observing that but for the code of conduct, he would have been promoted prior to his retirement. The ratio of that decision, though arising in the context of election code, is grounded in the broader principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness, and applies equally where promotion is deferred due to departmental decisions arising from litigation which ultimately ends without any adverse finding against the concerned employees. (16). Moreover, subsequent clarificatory instructions like DoP&T OM No.22011/3/2013- Estt(D) dated 25.01.2016, though issued in the context of sealed-cover cases arising from disciplinary or criminal proceedings, indicate the policy trend of Government to protect the pensionary interests of retired employees by granting notional promotion and consequential fixation of pension once they are found fit. The OM specifically contemplates cases where the Government servant has retired by the time he is exonerated of all charges and provides that such an employee, if found fit on opening of the sealed cover, is to be granted notional promotion from the date his junior was promoted and is entitled to fixation of pension on the basis of such notional pay. While the factual matrix of the petitioners may not strictly fall within the sealed-cover category, the underlying principle is that retirement should not operate as a bar to grant of notional promotion and pension revision where the employee has been found fit and the earlier denial of promotion was not on account of his own delinquency. (17). The respondents' reading of the OM dated 14.11.2014 as a complete bar to notional promotion for retired employees conflates DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor,

Location:

"actual promotion", in the sense of assumption of duties and drawing of full salary on the promoted post, with the distinct concept of notional promotion for limited purposes like seniority and pension. The OM only says that retired officials would have no right to "actual promotion", which must be understood as no right to physical appointment to the higher post. It does not prohibit the competent authority, or for that matter a court exercising writ jurisdiction, from granting notional promotion for the intervening period and corresponding revision of pension, especially when juniors have actually been promoted and are enjoying higher emoluments. In fact, as noticed earlier, DoP&T OMs of 09.04.1996 and 25.01.2016 permit inclusion of retired officials in the panel and extension of notional promotion with pension fixation, in appropriate situations. (18). In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned communications dated 30.10.2017 and 16.01.2018, whereby the petitioners' claim for promotion was rejected, are quashed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioners as having been notionally promoted to the rank of Assistant Commandant (GD) against the vacancies of the year 2013-14, with effect from the date on which their immediate juniors were promoted, and to refix their pay notionally for the limited purpose of recalculating and revising their pension and other retiral benefits on that basis. The exercise of notional fixation and revision of pension shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

6. In view of the above settled proposition, it is crystal clear that the applicant is entitled to notional promotion for the panel year 2015-16. Accordingly, the action of the respondents in not considering and granting notional promotion to the grade of ANSO-I is liable to be quashed and set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to treat the applicant as having been promoted to the grade of Assistant Naval Stores Officer-I, Group ‘A’ Gazetted, and to re-fix his pay notionally for the limited purpose of revising his pension and retiral benefits. DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor,

Location:

The said exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. With the above directions, the O.A. is allowed. All pending MAs, if any, are also disposed of. No order as to costs.

(VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI) (MANISH GARG) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

/pv/

Order dictated on : 12.10.2026 Order submitted on : 13.10.2026 DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor,

Location: