CHANDRA RAMAN RAWAT vs M/o Railways on 16 October 2026

O R D E R

By Mallika Arya, AM.-

The applicant is challenging the communication dated 22.01.2015 (Annexure A-1) whereby his representation for grant of promotion as Senior Clerk and thereafter to the post of Office Superintendent has been rejected by the respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed on 14.08.1985 in Group ‘D’ post under the Railways. He was subsequently promoted as Junior Clerk on 25.09.1996 and was transferred in the same post from Itarsi to Bhopal vide order dated 03.07.1997. In 2002, he was sent for Senior/Head Clerk training conducted at Zonal Training Centre Bhusawal. He successfully passed the training examination. The applicant was the only Junior Clerk, who attended the training programme. The promotional cadre for the post of Junior Clerk is Senior Clerk and then to Office Superintendent followed by Chief Office Superintendent. The promotion to each cadre is a non-selection post for which after completion of 2/3 years, the staff gets a chance to appear in Departmental Test.

ANUPAM MISHRA

2.1 As per the vacancy position in the cadre of Senior Clerk, against 7 sanctioned posts, only 5 persons were working and out of 5, one person viz; Ram Manohar retired in the month of July, 2014. As per the cadre position of Junior Clerks, name of the applicant is placed at Sr. No.3 in the seniority list. So far as the person at Sr. No.1 of the seniority list is concerned in the cadre of Junior Clerk, an enquiry under Lokayukta was pending and the person placed in Sr. No.2 was given two chances to appear in the suitability test. However, she was declared unsuccessful and did not qualify. In the suitability list, the applicant has been placed at Sr. No.3. He has never been called for any test nor been considered for promotion. 2.2 The applicant preferred a representation to the authorities to consider his case for promotion to higher cadre. The respondent No.5 also wrote letters to respondent No.3 to fill up the vacant posts of Senior Clerks. Since nothing was received from the respondents, he filed an Original Application No.1023/2014 before this Tribunal. Vide orders dated 16.12.2014 (Annexure A-XV), this Tribunal directed the respondents to consider and decide the applicant’s representation dated 07.10.2014 by a reasoned and speaking order within 90 days. However, the respondent No.3, without

ANUPAM MISHRA

considering the points raised in the representation, rejected his representation vide letter dated 22.01.2015 (Annexure A-I). 2.3 During the pendency of this Original Application, the applicant was promoted as Senior Clerk vide order dated 23.09.2020. However, he claims that he is entitled to be promoted w.e.f.1998-99. The applicant claims parity with Shri Dayal Kulhare, OS and Vadana Sharma, OS. 2.4 In 2005, a promotional panel was introduced. But the file related to applicant got misplaced. The applicant wrote an application to the Department requesting to provide the related documents under the RTI. However, only few selected documents were provided to him. Normally, a Junior Clerk is promoted to Senior Clerk within two to three years through departmental examination process. If not, the promotion can be granted in five years through general promotion. In the case of the applicant, he held the post of Junior Clerk for 24 years due to inaction of the authorities in not allowing him to participate in the departmental examination.

3. In their reply, the respondents have stated that the benefit of financial upgradation under MACP-2 was given to the applicant w.e.f.01.09.2008 in the Grade Pay Rs.2000/-. There is no post of Senior Clerk lying vacant, as

ANUPAM MISHRA

contended by the applicant, nor were any juniors to him promoted since 2005. The applicant was sent for Training of Disaster Management to Zonal Training Centre Bhusawal not for promotional training to the post of Senior Clerk. He participated successfully vide letter dated 24.05.2002 (Annexure A-V). The representation of the applicant has already been decided and he has been intimated that there is no post of Senior Clerk available against departmental quota. 3.1 In their reply to the amended Original Application, the respondents have stated that the applicant was promoted to the post of Senior Clerk vide Office Order dated 23.09.2020. The said promotion was granted strictly in accordance with applicable Recruitment Rules, seniority position, eligibility conditions and the prevailing instructions of Railway Board. The applicant cannot claim retrospective promotion merely on the basis of the length of service rendered as Junior Clerk. The amended relief seeking parity with Shri Shiv Dayal Kulhare and Smt. Vandana Sharma is not tenable. The applicant has failed to establish that he was identically placed to them.

4. In his rejoinder to the reply, the applicant has filed documents (Annexure RJ-I to RJ-IV) in support of his claim that four persons

ANUPAM MISHRA

appointed after the applicant have been promoted as Senior Clerk. He has also filed a copy of order dated 19.01.2010 (Annexure RJ-V) vide which sanction was accorded for extension of currency of Group C & D non gazetted work charge posts, wherein three posts of Senior Clerks were sanctioned. The applicant submits that he is entitled to be considered for promotion to the next two level as he fulfills the criteria of promotion which is based on seniority-cum-suitability.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the documents available on record.

6. It is a settled proposition of service jurisprudence that an employee has a right to fair consideration for promotion in accordance with the applicable Recruitment Rules, but such a right does not confer an indefeasible right to promotion from a particular date. In Ajit Singh and Others (II) vs. State of Punjab and Others, (1999) 7 SCC 209, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recognised the right to be considered for promotion as an important facet of the constitutional guarantee under Articles 14 and 16. However, the actual grant of promotion remains the subject to be examined as per the governing rules and the prescribed eligibility and selection requirements.

ANUPAM MISHRA

7. In the present case, the applicant has claimed retrospective promotion from 1998-99 primarily on the basis of his seniority and the length of service rendered as Junior Clerk and the alleged availability of vacancies in the promotional cadre. However, the applicant has not been able to establish that during the relevant years he fulfilled all the conditions prescribed under the applicable Recruitment Rules for promotion to the post of Senior Clerk. Nor has he produced an approved promotion panel or any other contemporaneous record demonstrating that he was found suitable for promotion from the year he has claimed promotion. The applicant's contention that the employees senior to him were either facing an inquiry or had failed to qualify in the suitability test does not establish his entitlement to an automatic promotion. The eligibility and suitability of each employee must be assessed in accordance with the applicable rules and the prescribed procedure. Even if an employee senior to the applicant was unavailable for promotion or failed to qualify, the applicant's own eligibility and suitability are required to be established through the prescribed process.

8. The respondents have specifically denied that vacancies were available for promotion against the relevant departmental quota and have stated that

ANUPAM MISHRA

the proposal processed in 2005 was dropped. The applicant's reliance upon the order dated 19.01.2010 concerning extension of the currency of certain sanctioned posts does not prove that the posts were available for filling up through the particular promotional channel applicable to him during the relevant period. The existence of sanctioned posts, their availability for appointment or promotion, and the applicability of the relevant quota are distinct matters. In the case of Union of India vs. Manpreet Singh Poonam, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 272, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated that the mere existence of a vacancy does not confer a right to retrospective promotion, particularly where promotion is governed by prescribed rules and a selection or assessment process. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that the right to promotion and consequential seniority must be determined with reference to the rules governing the particular promotional post. Applying the aforesaid principles, we are unable to hold that the applicant acquired a vested right to promotion as Senior Clerk from 1998-99 merely because he had completed the requisite length of service or because certain posts were stated to have been sanctioned.

ANUPAM MISHRA

9. The applicant has relied upon certain documents filed with his rejoinder to contend that four persons appointed after him were promoted as Senior Clerks. He has also claimed parity with Shri Shiv Dayal Kulhare and Smt. Vandana Sharma, who were allegedly promoted as Office Superintendents. The respondents, on the other hand, have categorically denied that any junior to the applicant was promoted against the relevant departmental quota during the period in question. They have also disputed the applicant's claim that the persons relied upon by him were identically situated. In matters relating to promotion, an employee claiming discrimination must establish that the persons relied upon were similarly situated with respect to the applicable Recruitment Rules, eligibility conditions, seniority, promotional quota and relevant selection process. The mere fact that another employee was appointed later or is stated to have received promotion does not establish that the applicant was entitled to identical treatment. The documents relied upon by the applicant have not been shown to establish that the persons concerned were promoted against the same quota, under the same rules and in circumstances identical to those of the applicant. In the absence of such material, the claim of discrimination cannot be accepted. We accordingly find that the applicant has not been

ANUPAM MISHRA

able to substantiate a legally sustainable claim to retrospective promotion on the ground of parity.

10. There is an additional circumstance which requires consideration. As per the cause title of the Original Application, the applicant was stated to be approximately 51 years of age when the Original Application was instituted in 2015. The matter has remained pending for a considerable period. On the basis of the age recorded in the cause title and the ordinary age of superannuation applicable to Railway employees, the applicant would, by now, have attained the age of superannuation. In Government of West Bengal and Others vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi, Civil Appeal No. 4544 of 2014, decided on 27.11.2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that “in the absence of an enabling rule and where the employee had not assumed the responsibilities of the promotional post, retrospective promotion and the associated financial benefits could not be granted merely on the basis of an earlier recommendation or the occurrence of a vacancy”. The aforesaid judgment reinforces the principle that retrospective promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of course after superannuation.

ANUPAM MISHRA

11. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no sufficient grounds to interfere with the impugned communication dated 22.01.2015 or to grant the retrospective promotional benefits claimed by the applicant. Hence, the Original Application being devoid of any merits is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Mallika Arya)

(Rajinder Singh Dogra) Administrative Member

Judicial Member

am/-

ANUPAM MISHRA