Sanjeet Kumar vs M/o Railways on 13 October 2026

ORDER

Per: Ms. Ranjana Shahi, Member (J)

The applicants, five in number have filed the present application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs : “8(i) That the applicants may be permitted to peruse this joint application on behalf of five applicants under rule 4(5) of CAT Procedure Rule, 1987.

8(ii) That the impugned order dated 14.7.2017 (Annexure A-1) issued by 1st respondent, may be declared illegal and the same may be quashed and the respondents may be directed to hold fresh SPC and prepare fresh suitability list and promotion order for the post of MCF (TMC), by ignoring the reservation and the applicant allowed with all consequential benefits at par with their next juniors.

8(iii) That any other direction, or orders may be passed in favour of the applicant, which may be deemed just and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case in the interest of justice.

8(iv) That the costs of this application may be awarded.”

2. The applicants have filed this application seeking promotion to the post of MCF (TMC). We have been informed that (i)

GUPTA

KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA

3 OA No.440/2017

the applicant No.1, Shri Sanjeet Kumar, expired during the pendency of the present Original Application; (ii) the applicant Nos.2 and 5, Shri Raja Ram and Shri Sunil Ganga Ram, had already withdrawn from the proceedings vide MA No.291/194/2018, which was allowed vide order dated 01.08.2018; (iii) applicant No.3, Shri Chunni Lal Rajput, has already superannuated during the pendency of the present Original Application and, as per Annexure A-2, his date of birth is mentioned as 06.06.1965; and (iv) applicant No.4, Shri Chandra Pal Singh Baghel, has also superannuated during the pendency of the present Original Application and, as per Annexure A-2, his date of birth is mentioned as 11.03.1966.

3. Thus, out of the five applicants, two applicants had already withdrawn in the year 2018, one applicant expired during the pendency of the present OA and the remaining two applicants i.e. applicant Nos.3 and 4 have already retired from service. As such, the relief sought by the applicants i.e. promotion to the post of MCF (TMC) cannot be granted in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 27.11.2024 passed in the case of Government of West Bengal and others Vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced here for ready reference : “15. The primary question that arises for our consideration in the present appeal is whether respondent No.1, who was recommended for the promotion before his retirement but did not receive actual promotion to the higher post due to administrative delays, is entitled to notional financial benefits of the promotional post after his retirement?

xxxxx

GUPTA

KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA

4 OA No.440/2017

19. It is a well settled principle that promotion becomes effective from the date it is granted, rather than from the date a vacancy arises or the post is created. While the Courts have recognized the right to be considered for promotion as not only a statutory right but also a fundamental right, there is no fundamental right to the promotion itself. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to a recent decision of this Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board and Others v. Dharamdeo Das, 2024 SCC Online SC 1768, wherein it was observed as follows:

“18. It is no longer res integra that a promotion is effective from the date it is granted and not from the date when a vacancy occurs on the subject post or when the post itself is created. No doubt, a right to be considered for promotion has been treated by courts not just as a statutory right but as a fundamental right, at the same time, there is no fundamental right to promotion itself. In this context, we may profitably cite a recent decision in Ajay Kumar Shukla v. Arvind Rai, (2022)

SCC

where, citing earlier precedents in Director, Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty, (1991) 2 SCC 295 and Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, (1999) 7 SCC 209, a three-Judge Bench observed thus:

“41. This Court, time and again, has laid emphasis on right to be considered for promotion to be a fundamental right, as was held by K. Ramaswamy, J., in Director, Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty in para 4 of the report which is reproduced below:

‘4……. There is no fundamental right to promotion, but an employee has only right to be considered for promotion, when it arises, in accordance with relevant rules. From this perspective in our view the conclusion of the High Court that the gradation list prepared by the corporation is in violation of the right of respondent-writ petitioner to equality enshrined under

GUPTA

KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA

5 OA No.440/2017

Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution, and the respondent-writ petitioner was unjustly denied of the same is obviously unjustified’.”

xxxxx

20. In State of Bihar v. Akhouri Sachindra Nath, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 334, it was held that retrospective seniority cannot be given to an employee from a date when he was not even borne in the cadre, nor can seniority be given with retrospective effect as that might adversely affect others. The same view was reiterated in Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 272, where it was held that when a quota is provided for, then the seniority of the employee would be reckoned from the date when the vacancy arises in the quota and not from any anterior date of promotion or subsequent date of confirmation.

xxxxx

38. This Court has consistently held that no retrospective promotion can be granted nor can any seniority be given on retrospective basis from a date when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre particularly when this would adversely affect the direct recruits who have been appointed validity in the meantime.” (emphasis supplied)” xxxxx

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

GUPTA

KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA

6 OA No.440/2017

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 1st 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.”

8. The Hon’ble Apex Court’s judgment passed in the case of Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra) has been considered by the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in the case of Jai Prakash Padwar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. (WPS No. 3413/2021) in its judgment dated 24.07.2025 and held as below: - “6. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no notional benefits can be extended where promotion is claimed after retirement; therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).”

9. The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in the case of Illa Ananda Nivas Vs. Asst. Commissioner & Anr. (WP No. 30187 of 2011) vide its order dated 11.07.2025 also considered the above mentioned judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra) and in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the Writ Petition and held as below (relevant extracts): - “7. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Government of West Bengal and others Vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi and others reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3512, held in the following extracted manner: "That even recognizing the promotion 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."

8. After careful persuasive of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (referred supra), the promotion only becomes effective on the assumption of duties and the representation of the respondents that the petitioner was superannuated was not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, the said

GUPTA

KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA

7 OA No.440/2017

principle is squarely applicable to the petitioner herein, as he was superannuated. Even assuming that the petitioner is entitled for promotion as claimed by him, he is not entitled to retrospective financial benefits, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (referred supra).”

10. After going through the above mentioned judgments, the crux of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and followed by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in the case of Illa Ananda Nivas (supra) and Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in the case of Jai Prakash Padwar (supra) is that the promotion only becomes effective on assumption of the duties of the promoted post. In other words, the promotion has to be effectuated and to do so, the employee has to be in service so that he can actually assume the duties on the promotional post and since the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in the above cited judgment in Illa Ananda Nivas (supra) has emphasized that “Even assuming that the petitioner is entitled for promotion as claimed by him, he is not entitled to retrospective financial benefits, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (referred supra).”

11. In the case of Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra), the employee was though not granted retrospective promotion after his superannuation by the Hon’ble High Court at Culcutta yet he was granted notional financial benefits for the promotional post. But the Hon’ble Apex Court quashed the order of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta and specifically considered and dealt with the question “whether respondent No.1, who was recommended for the promotion before his retirement but did not receive actual promotion to the higher post due to administrative delays, is entitled to notional financial benefits of the promotional post after his retirement?” Thus, the Hon’ble Apex Court held employee not entitled even to notional financial benefits for the promotional post despite been recommended for promotion before superannuation and also noticing the administrative delay in actually giving him promotion. It needs to be stressed that in that case, the employee was held fit for promotion and was recommended for promotion to Public Service Commission before his retirement, but the department received the final approval for his promotion by 04th January, 2017, whereas, he superannuated on 30th December, 2016 i.e. barely 04 days prior. Even in such case, the Hon’ble Apex Court declined the relief on the ground that his promotion was not effectuated as he could not assume the responsibilities of a promoted post because he retired prior to that.”

GUPTA

KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA

8 OA No.440/2017

4. The said principle has subsequently been followed by the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, at Bilaspur in the case of Jai Prakash Padwar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another in WPS No.3413/2021 decided on 24.07.2025; by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in the case of Illa Ananda Nivas Vs. Asst. Commissioner & Anr. in WP No.30187/2011 vide its order dated 11.07.2025 and by the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Manveer Singh & Others Vs. Union of India and others, in OA No.183/2013 decided on 07.04.2026. Since the promotion cannot be effectuated, as the applicants cannot join the promotional post, having already retired from service, the petitioners were not granted the relief.

5. This Bench of the Tribunal has already taken a consistent view in similar matters, in OA No.550/2017 titled as Nishi Nigam Vs. Union of India and others decided on 11.05.2026, wherein the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra) was considered and followed. In the said judgment, the decisions rendered by this Bench of the Tribunal in a similar matter was also duly taken into consideration including in OA No.18/2024 in the case of Deo Karan Singh Meel Vs. Union of India and others decided on 09.03.2026 and in a batch of Original Application Nos.601/2026 titled as Ram Swaroop Ajmera Vs. Union of India and others decided on 31.07.2025 and the view taken, therein, was affirmed and followed.

GUPTA

KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA

9 OA No.440/2017

6. Therefore, this Bench, relying upon the aforesaid judgments, has been consistently taking the view that those who had already retired cannot be promoted, as they cannot assume charge of the promotional post. In the present case also, applicant Nos.3 and 4 have already retired from service and, therefore, the relief of promotion to the post of MCF (TMC) cannot be effectuated. Further, applicant No.1 has expired during the pendency of the Original Application, while applicant Nos.2 and 5 had already withdrawn from the proceedings.

7. In view of the aforesaid facts and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra), as followed in the aforesaid subsequent decisions, no effective relief can now be granted to the applicants. As such, the present Original Application also deserves the same fate and is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.

8. Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand closed.

(Lok Ranjan) (Ranjana Shahi) Member (A) Member (J)

kmg*

GUPTA

KHUSHBOO