HARJIT KAUR vs AIIMS on 2 November 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

This the 02nd Day of November, 2026

Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)

Mrs. Harjit Kaur, Aged about 68 years, Wife of Sh. Joginder Singh, Ex. Upper Division Clerk/Senior Administrative Assistant, AIIMS, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi-110029.

Presently residing at: H. No. L-99, 2nd Floor, Gali No. 21, New Mahavir Nagar, New Delhi-110018.

.…Applicant

(By Advocate : Mr. A K Bhakta)

VERSUS A.I.I.M.S., New Delhi, Through its The Director, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi-110029

.... RESPONDENTS

[By Advocate :None]

ARTI

ARTI

ORDER (ORAL)

Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)

The present OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief(s):- “ A. This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the respondent to produce the relevant service records, applicable recruitment rules, year-wise vacancy statements, seniority lists, eligibility lists, DPC proceedings and promotion orders concerning promotion from UDC/SAA to Junior Administrative Officer and from Junior Administrative Officer to Assistant Administrative Officer for the relevant period; and further direct respondents to produce the name of UDC/SAA Officials who retired in 2019 to 2024 and more than 221 vacancies of Juniors Administrative Officers have been arisen. B. Direct the respondent to examine and decide, in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules and law, whether the applicant fulfilled the eligibility conditions for consideration for promotion to the post of Junior Administrative Administrative Officer, Assistant Officer and Administrative Officer against the vacancy arising during her service period as per law; C. Direct the respondent to undertake the appropriate review or reconsideration of her case against the relevant vacancy year or years, in accordance with the applicable rules and procedure, If the applicant is found eligible and her claim is otherwise legally sustainable; D. Direct the respondent to grant promotions to the applicant on the post of Junior Administrative Officer and Assistant Administrative Officer and Administrative Officer on the basis of 17 years unblemished continuous service on the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) / Senior Administrative Assistant (SAA) with all consequential service benefits; if, upon such consideration, the applicant is found entitled to promotion as are permissible under the applicable rules and law and further direct the respondent to grant consequential revision of her pension and other retiral benefits. E. Direct the respondent to consider the applicant's representations and legal notice-cum-representation dated 29.07.2026 and pass a reasoned and speaking Order to the extent required by law;

F. To impose cost on the respondent for unnecessary harassment and litigation charges. G. To pass such other or further order or orders in the favour of the applicant as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” ARTI

ARTI

2. The applicant seeks a direction to the respondents to furnish the details of the UDCs/SAAs (Senior Administrative Assistants) who retired during the period from 2019 to 2024, along with the number of vacancies that arose in the cadre of Junior Administrative Officers in the mainland establishments.

3. On the other hand, the applicant also seeks appropriate directions to the respondents to undertake a review/reconsideration of her case against the relevant vacancy year(s) for promotion to the post of Junior Administrative Officer.

4. The applicant was initially appointed as a Stenographer/Typist on an ad hoc basis. Subsequently, she was regularised on the post of LDC on 06.12.1994. Thereafter, in the year 2000, she was promoted to the post of UDC/Senior Administrative Assistant.

5. It is the case of the applicant that, upon completion of five years of service as UDC, she became eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Junior Administrative Officer. However, no DPC was convened during the relevant period.

6. The applicant retired from service on 30.09.2017 upon attaining the age of superannuation.

7. It is further contended that DPCs were subsequently convened in the respondent department in the years 2019, 2020 and 2022, wherein the applicant's ARTI

ARTI

erstwhile juniors were considered and promoted. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

8. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, we are of the considered view that the relief sought by the applicant would require this Tribunal to undertake a roving and fishing inquiry into the vacancies, retirements and subsequent DPC proceedings. The applicant also seeks a direction for review of the DPCs conducted from the year 2019 onwards for consideration of her case for promotion.

9. In our considered opinion, such a relief cannot be granted in the present proceedings, particularly when the applicant had already retired from service on 30.09.2017, whereas the DPCs in question were convened subsequently.

10. We further find that the applicant had retired from service in 2017, and, therefore, she could not have been considered in the DPCs conducted in 2019 and thereafter, in the absence of any legally sustainable claim for consideration against an earlier vacancy year.

11. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in the present Original Application. 10. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Government of West Bengal & Ors. v. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors., 2024 INSC 906, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: ARTI

ARTI

“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 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.

23. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.

24. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, accordingly, set aside the judgments of the High Court and the Tribunal and allowed the appeal. The aforesaid dictum is squarely relevant to the claim for retrospective promotional and consequential financial benefits raised by the applicant in the present case.

13. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in the present Original Application. The same is accordingly dismissed. Pending MA also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi) Member (A) Member (J)

/arti/

ARTI

ARTI