Jatti Ram Meena vs URBAN DEVELOPMENT DIVISION on 5 November 2026

ORDER

Per Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J): MA No. 964/2026 for joining together in a single Application is allowed for the reasons stated therein. The applicants have filed the present Original Application challenging the action of the respondents in not considering their cases for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Electrical) [EE (Elect.)], despite their claimed eligibility and seniority, while seeking administrative clearance in respect of their juniors. The applicants, who are five in number, submit that they are serving as Assistant Engineers (Electrical) [AE (Elect.)] in the respondents’ department. They were initially appointed as Junior Engineers (Electrical) [JE (Elect.)] in the year 2003 as degree holders. Applicants were subsequently promoted on Adhoc basis as AE (Elect.) vide orders dated 24.11.2010 and 30.10.2012, against clear vacancies and within their prescribed quota, after being found eligible and suitable in accordance with the applicable Recruitment Rules. Applicants submit that their promotions were, however, treated as ad hoc on account of the pendency of a W.P. (C) No. 840/2003.

2. It was submitted that, while the respondents regularized the ad hoc promotions of similarly situated AEs (Elect.) vide orders dated 28.05.2015 and 31.08.2015, the applicants were left out despite having fulfilled the requisite eligibility conditions. Their promotions were ultimately regularized vide Office Order No. 34/2022 dated 19.05.2022. The regularization of the adhoc promotion was done by modifying the orders dated 28.05.2015 and 31.08.2015, earlier

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSAI N

regularization orders and treating them as regular AEs against vacancy year 2011–12. Consequently, in the seniority list dated 16.07.2025, the applicants were placed at Sl. Nos. 183, 184, 185, 189 and 193, respectively, against the said vacancy year, above their juniors. It was further pointed out that, vide the aforesaid order dated 19.05.2022, the applicants were accorded seniority positions below one Naresh Kumar Singh, whose seniority was stated to be at Sl. No. 935 in the relevant seniority record.

3. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that they are aggrieved by the Office Memorandum dated 28.01.2026, whereby administrative clearance certificates were sought in respect of certain Assistant Engineers for consideration for promotion to the next higher post of EE (Elect.). According to the applicants, the details of their juniors were sought for the purpose of such consideration, whereas the applicants were excluded. It is contended that, once the respondents had recognized their seniority by modifying the earlier regularization orders and placing them against vacancy year 2011– 12, there was no justification for ignoring them while considering their cases for promotion to the next higher post. It was further submitted that the respondents had earlier included the applicants in the communication dated 21.07.2025 while seeking administrative clearance for promotion to the post of EE (Elect.), but subsequently excluded them vide the impugned O.M. dated 28.01.2026 without assigning any reason. Their representations submitted in January– February 2026 also remained unanswered.

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSAI N

4. The learned counsel further submitted that, under the Central Engineering (Electrical and Mechanical) Group 'A' Service Recruitment Rules, 2012, the applicants had completed the requisite seven years of service as AE (Elect.) and claimed eligibility for promotion to the post of EE (Elect.) in the year 2022 itself. Their initial promotions were made on the recommendations of a duly constituted DPC, against clear vacancies within their quota, after consideration of their eligibility, APARs and vigilance clearance. They continued to discharge the duties of AE (Elect.) without any break, and their promotions were not fortuitous.

5. It was contended that the respondents had arbitrarily reckoned the applicants’ service for eligibility for promotion only from 19.05.2022, instead of counting it from the respective dates of their ad hoc promotions or, at the very least, from the dates on which similarly situated employees were regularized in 2015. According to the applicants, the order dated 19.05.2022 modified the earlier regularization orders and recognized and regularized them against vacancy year 2011–12; therefore, the respondents could not disregard the corresponding period of service while determining their eligibility for further promotion. Such differential treatment, despite the applicants’ recognized seniority and continuous service, was alleged to be arbitrary and discriminatory, in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Seniority without benefit of eligibility of service is meaningless.

6. At the interim stage, learned counsel for the applicants had submitted that the respondents were actively proceeding to convene

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSAI N

the DPC for promotion to Executive engineer and that, if the DPC were allowed to proceed without considering their cases, the applicants would suffer irreparable injury and prejudice. Reliance was also placed upon the order dated 25.02.2026 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 476/2026, which, according to the applicants, involved similar issues. In view of the seniority accorded to the applicants under the order dated 19.05.2022 and the plea raised by them, the Tribunal, vide its interim order dated 27.02.2026 passed in O.A. No. 754/2026, directed the respondents to consider the applicants for promotion to the post of EE (Elect.) in the forthcoming DPC, in accordance with their seniority position, subject to the outcome of the Original Application.

7. In their written submissions, the applicants also referred to M.A. No. 2617/2026, filed by certain ad hoc Executive Engineers (Electrical) serving in CPWD, seeking their impleadment as party respondents in O.A. No. 754/2026. The applicants in the said M.A. had contended that, pursuant to a communication dated 02.02.2026, the department had called for their Administrative Clearance Certificates and those of other Executive Engineers for the purpose of regularization of their ad hoc promotions. They apprehended that their regularization had been kept pending owing to the pendency of O.A. No. 754/2026 and the interim order dated 27.02.2026 passed therein. They further referred to O.A. No. 476/2026, filed by certain diploma-holder AEs (Elect.) who had subsequently acquired degree qualifications, in which the Tribunal

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSAI N

had passed an order dated 25.02.2026 directing consideration of the applicants therein for promotion to the post of EE (Elect.).

8. However, M.A. No. 2617/2026 was dismissed at the admission stage. While considering the application, the Tribunal observed that no documentary material had been placed on record to establish that the regularization of the applicants therein had actually been withheld on account of the pendency of O.A. No. 754/2026. The Tribunal also noted that the applicants themselves had stated in paragraph 7 of the M.A. that their case was entirely different from O.A. Nos. 476/2026 and 754/2026, as their grievance concerned regularization of their ad hoc promotions to the post of EE (E&M), pursuant to the Office Order dated 02.02.2026, and not their promotion to the said post. It was further observed that the interim order dated 27.02.2026 passed in O.A. No. 754/2026 did not, prima facie, affect their seniority or their promotion/regularization. The Tribunal held that the applicants in the M.A. were neither necessary nor proper parties to O.A. No. 754/2026 and that their application appeared to be based on speculation, without substantive supporting material. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mumbai International Airport Private Limited v. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited, (2010) 7 SCC 417, relied upon by the applicants in the M.A., was held to be distinguishable on facts.

9. In support of their submissions on the merits, reliance was placed upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association v. State of Maharashtra, (1990) 2 SCC 715; Union of India v. K.B. Rajoria, (2000)

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSAI N

3 SCC 562; State of Uttarakhand v. Jagdish Chandra Kandpal, 2026 INSC 759; and P.N. Premachandran v. State of Kerala. Reliance was also placed upon the judgments in Government of NCT of Delhi v. Rakesh Beniwal, W.P. (C) No. 7423/2013, decided on 04.08.2014; Government of NCT of Delhi v. Purnima Gupta, W.P. (C) No. 4412/2025, decided on 07.04.2025; Dr. Sahadeva Singh v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 5549/2007, decided on 28.02.2012; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Rakesh Gupta, W.P. (C) No. 4396/2024, decided on 24.04.2024; and Harish Pal Singh v. NDMC, O.A. No. 3019/2016, decided on 16.09.2025. It was submitted that these decisions support the applicants’ contention that, subject to the applicable Recruitment Rules and the facts of the case, employees should not be prejudiced by administrative delays attributable to the employer in regularization or consideration for promotion. Reliance was further placed upon State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh, (2009) 5 SCC 65, and Om Kumar v. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386, in support of the plea against arbitrary and discriminatory State action.

10. Besides the oral submissions, the applicants filed written submissions, wherein they relied upon the following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand: “11.1. This Court has consistently held that the State, being a model employer, is saddled with a heightened obligation in the discharge of its functions. A model employer is expected to act with high probity, fairness and candour, and bears a social responsibility to treat its employees in a manner that preserves their dignity. The State cannot be permitted to exploit its employees or to take advantage of their vulnerability, helplessness or unequal bargaining position.

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSAI N

11.2. It therefore follows that the State is required to exercise heightened caution in its role as an employer, the constitutional mandate casting upon it a strict obligation to act as a model employer, an obligation from which no exception can be countenanced. Fundamental Rights and their waiver”

On the strength of the aforesaid observations, it was contended that the respondents, being a model employer, could not take advantage of their own omission in delaying the regularization of the applicants’ promotions, particularly when the initial promotions were made against clear vacancies within their quota and the applicants continued to discharge the duties of AE (Elect.) without interruption.

11. The applicants further submitted that the respondents’ own order dated 19.05.2022, by modifying the earlier regularization orders and placing them against vacancy year 2011–12, recognized their entitlement to the corresponding seniority. It was, therefore, contended that the respondents could not treat the applicants as members of the cadre from the said vacancy year for seniority purposes while reckoning their service for promotion only from the date of the regularization order. Reliance was again placed upon Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association (supra), K.B. Rajoria (supra), Jagdish Chandra Kandpal (supra) and Rakesh Beniwal (supra).

12. The applicants also disputed the respondents’ reliance upon the decision in O.A. No. 1360/2015, contending that the said decision supported consideration for promotion from the date on which the relevant juniors became eligible and that the issue of discrimination raised in the present Original Application had been

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSAI N

left open for independent adjudication. They also referred to the decision in Emannuel Murmu, O.A. No. 3737/2023, wherein, according to them, this Tribunal had directed the counting of ad hoc service for determining eligibility for promotion. The applicants reiterated that the regularization order dated 19.05.2022 could not be treated as purely prospective when it modified the earlier orders and recognized their placement against vacancy year 2011–12.

13. With regard to the objection concerning non-impleadment of juniors, the applicants submitted that they did not seek alteration of the existing seniority list or displacement of any junior, but merely sought consideration for promotion in accordance with the seniority already assigned to them by the respondents by counting the service rendered by them as eligible service. Accordingly, they prayed for a direction to reckon their service as AE (Elect.) from the relevant date in accordance with the applicable rules, to consider their cases for promotion to EE (Elect.) through an appropriate DPC, and to grant consequential benefits, as admissible in law.

14. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicants were granted ad hoc promotions as AE (Elect.) vide orders dated 24.11.2010 (applicants Nos. 2 to 4) and 30.10.2012 (applicants Nos. 1 and 5). Subsequently, they were granted regular promotion vide order dated 19.05.2022 pursuant to a Review DPC against the Scheduled Tribe (ST) category vacancies pertaining to vacancy year 2011–12. These vacancies arose following the adjustment of nine ST-category Assistant Engineers against the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination quota, pursuant to

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSAI N

the result declared on 11.04.2017, and the cancellation of promotions of three other ST-category officers vide order dated 16.12.2021. Accordingly, the vacancies against which the applicants were promoted became available only subsequently, as the original vacancies had already been filled vide order dated 28.05.2015.

15. It was contended that a Review DPC does not ordinarily confer retrospective or notional promotion, except in specified circumstances involving expunction or toning down of adverse remarks or the retirement of an officer by the time of the Review DPC, neither of which applied to the applicants. Reliance was placed upon the DoPT O.M. dated 10.04.1989 and the settled principle that regular promotion takes effect from the date it is granted in accordance with the applicable rules. It was further submitted that ad hoc and regular promotions are distinct in nature, being made against different categories of vacancies and through different selection procedures. Moreover, applicants Nos. 1 and 5 were granted ad hoc promotion only on 30.10.2012 and, therefore, could not claim service or eligibility from vacancy year 2011–12. In this regard, reliance was placed upon the decision of this Tribunal in Rajendra Prasad Yadav v. Union of India, O.A. No. 4674/2024, decided on 04.07.2025, which was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 10778/2025 on 25.07.2025.

16. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the Recruitment Rules dated 17.10.2012 governing promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Electrical and Mechanical) prescribe seven years of regular service as Assistant Engineer, along with the

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSAI N

requisite engineering degree and completion of the prescribed training. The Rules define regular service as service rendered after selection and appointment in accordance with the prescribed procedure for regular appointment, thereby excluding ad hoc service. Reliance was placed reliance upon Dr. M.A. Haque v. Union of India, (1993) 2 SCC 213, to contend that statutory Recruitment Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution must be strictly followed. It was argued that retrospective assignment of seniority from vacancy year 2011–12 neither constitutes regular service from that year nor dispenses with the prescribed qualifying service, as seniority and eligibility are distinct concepts.

17. In support of this contention, reliance was also placed upon R. Prabha Devi v. Government of India, 1988 AIR 902; Shreekant Ranjan v. Union of India, O.A. No. 424/2012, decided on 05.12.2013 by this Tribunal; Palure Bhaskar Rao v. P. Ramaseshaiah, (2017) 5 SCC 783; and Km. Kusum v. State of Uttarakhand, Writ Petition (S/B) No. 602 of 2017, decided on 03.01.2018. Accordingly, the respondents contended that the applicants were not entitled to count their ad hoc service towards the prescribed qualifying service or to claim retrospective eligibility for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer.

18. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the pleadings available on record.

19. The controversy arising for consideration in the present Original Application is whether the respondents were justified in

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSAI N

excluding the applicants from consideration for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Electrical) [EE (Elect.)], despite having accorded them regular promotion against vacancy year 2011–12 and assigned them seniority accordingly, while seeking administrative clearance in respect of their juniors.

20. The facts, as emerging from the pleadings, reveal that the applicants were initially appointed as Junior Engineers (Electrical) in the year 2003 and were subsequently promoted as Assistant Engineers (Electrical) vide orders dated 24.11.2010 and 30.10.2012. Their promotions were treated as ad hoc on account of the pendency of W.P. (C) No. 840/2003. While the respondents regularized the promotions of certain similarly situated Assistant Engineers vide orders dated 28.05.2015 and 31.08.2015, the applicants were not extended the same treatment at that stage. Their promotions were eventually regularized vide Office Order No. 34/2022 dated 19.05.2022, by modifying the orders dated 28.05.2015 and 31.08.2015 regularization orders and placing them against vacancy year 2011–12. Thereafter, their seniority was reflected in the seniority list dated 16.07.2025.

21. The aforesaid circumstances assume significance because the applicants are not seeking consideration for promotion solely on the basis of the dates of their initial ad hoc appointments. Their principal grievance is that, after having recognized their seniority against vacancy year 2011–12, the respondents have excluded them from consideration for promotion to the next higher post, while seeking administrative clearance in respect of certain juniors vide O.M. dated

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSAI N

28.01.2026. The respondents were, therefore, required to demonstrate a valid and legally sustainable basis for such exclusion, particularly when the applicants had earlier figured in the communication dated 21.07.2025 seeking administrative clearance for promotion.

22. The respondents have sought to justify their action on the ground that the applicants were granted regular promotion only on 19.05.2022 and that the Recruitment Rules dated 17.10.2012 prescribe seven years of regular service as Assistant Engineer for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. They have further contended that ad hoc service cannot be counted towards the prescribed qualifying service and that the assignment of seniority against an earlier vacancy year does not automatically confer eligibility for promotion from that year.

23. We have considered the aforesaid contention. There can be no dispute with the settled proposition that promotion to a post governed by statutory Recruitment Rules must be made in accordance with the prescribed eligibility conditions and that seniority, by itself, does not confer an indefeasible right to promotion. Equally, however, the respondents are bound to give due effect to their own orders concerning regularization and seniority and cannot adopt an inconsistent approach without a legally sustainable justification. Where an employee has been assigned seniority against a particular vacancy year pursuant to an order passed by the competent authority, the implications of that order must be

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSAI N

examined in its entirety while determining the employee’s eligibility and entitlement to consideration for further promotion.

24. In the present case, the order dated 19.05.2022 was not merely an order granting regular promotion prospectively without reference to any earlier vacancy year. As pleaded by the applicants, it modified the earlier regularization orders and recognized their placement against vacancy year 2011–12. The respondents were, therefore, required to consider the legal effect of the said order in conjunction with the applicable Recruitment Rules before excluding the applicants from consideration for promotion. The mere fact that the formal order of regularization was issued in 2022 would not, by itself, be sufficient to dispose of the applicants’ grievance without examining the precise terms and effect of the order dated 19.05.2022.

25. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association v. State of Maharashtra, (1990) 2 SCC 715, lays down principles governing the reckoning of service and seniority, particularly in cases involving appointments made according to the prescribed procedure and appointments made otherwise than in accordance with the rules. Similarly, in Union of India v. K.B. Rajoria, (2000) 3 SCC 562, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the distinction between the date relevant for seniority and the date relevant for determining eligibility for promotion. These decisions underscore the necessity of examining the applicable rules and the nature of the service rendered rather

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSAI N

than proceeding merely on the basis of the date on which a subsequent order was formally issued.

26. The aforesaid judgments do not, however, lay down that every period of ad hoc service must invariably be counted towards qualifying service for promotion. The question must be determined with reference to the applicable Recruitment Rules and the terms of the order by which the applicants were regularized. Consequently, the respondents’ contention that ad hoc service is excluded under the Recruitment Rules cannot be accepted or rejected in the abstract; the material question is whether, in the peculiar circumstances of the present case, the regularization order dated 19.05.2022 confers any relevant retrospective effect for determining the applicants’ qualifying service.

27. The principle that the State must act as a model employer also assumes relevance in the present matter. In Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the obligation of the State to act fairly and with due regard to the dignity and legitimate interests of its employees. This principle does not dispense with statutory eligibility requirements; nevertheless, it reinforces the obligation of the respondents to deal with similarly situated employees fairly, consistently and in accordance with law. Administrative delay in issuing an order of regularization cannot, without examining its circumstances and legal effect, be treated as a sufficient ground for denying an employee consideration for promotion.

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSAI N

28. However, the decision of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 3019/2016, decided on 15.10.2025 relied upon by the respondents, is distinguishable on facts from the present case. In the said matter, the applicants’ promotions to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) had continued to be treated as ad hoc for nearly 15–20 years, notwithstanding their promotion against substantive vacancies and their uninterrupted discharge of the duties of the higher post. The Tribunal, in those circumstances, directed regularisation of their promotions from the respective dates of ad hoc promotion and consideration for further promotion through year-wise review DPCs, subject to the applicable eligibility conditions and availability of vacancies.

29. In the present case, however, the applicants have already been granted regular promotion as Assistant Engineers (Electrical) vide Office Order dated 19.05.2022, with their placement recognised against vacancy year 2011–12. The controversy is not confined to regularisation of their ad hoc promotions but concerns the effect of the said order upon the computation of qualifying service prescribed under the applicable Recruitment Rules for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Electrical). The judgment in O.A. No. 3019/2016, therefore, does not by itself establish an automatic entitlement to count the entire period of ad hoc service towards qualifying service for further promotion. Nevertheless, the principles of fairness, consistency in administrative action and due consideration of the legal effect of the regularisation order, as recognised in the said decision, are relevant to the adjudication of the present controversy. Accordingly, the respondents are required to

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSAI N

examine the applicants’ eligibility individually, in the light of the applicable Recruitment Rules, their respective dates of regular placement, and the terms and effect of the order dated 19.05.2022, without mechanically reckoning the qualifying service from the date of issuance of the said order.

30. We also take note of the interim order dated 27.02.2026 passed by this Tribunal in the present O.A., whereby the respondents were directed to consider the applicants for promotion to the post of EE (Elect.) in the forthcoming DPC in accordance with their seniority position, subject to the outcome of the O.A. The said direction was issued after taking into account the seniority accorded to the applicants under the order dated 19.05.2022 and their grievance concerning the exclusion of their cases from consideration. Although an interim order does not determine the final merits of the dispute, the circumstances that led to the grant of interim protection reinforce the need for a reasoned and legally sustainable consideration of the applicants’ claims.

31. The dismissal of M.A. No. 2617/2026, filed by certain ad hoc Executive Engineers seeking impleadment in O.A. No. 754/2026, does not alter the position. The said application was dismissed because the applicants therein had failed to place documentary material establishing that their regularization had actually been withheld on account of the pendency of the present O.A. and because their claim concerned a distinct issue of regularization of ad hoc Executive Engineers. The said order, therefore, does not adjudicate the substantive question raised in the present O.A. regarding the

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSAI N

applicants’ entitlement to consideration for promotion in the light of their own regularization and seniority orders.

32. We are, accordingly, of the considered view that the applicants’ claim requires determination on the basis of the applicable Recruitment Rules, the order dated 19.05.2022 and the relevant service particulars of the applicants and their juniors.

33. The office order no. 34/2022 dated 19.05.2022 states that the earlier orders of regularization dated 28.05.2015 and 31.08.2015 stand modified. Meaning thereby that the applicants regularization as AE on 19.05.2022 is to be read from the regularization orders dated 28.05.2015 and 31.08.2015. The applicants have been regularized against vacancy year 2011-2012 and granted seniority as well. Respondents therefore cannot exclude the applicants from consideration merely by referring to the date of formal regularization 19.05.2022, without examining the effect of the aforesaid order and the basis on which the applicants have been assigned seniority against vacancy year 2011–12. At the same time, the applicants cannot claim automatic promotion or counting of the entire period of ad hoc service contrary to any express requirement of the Recruitment Rules. The regularization orders dated 28.05.2015 and 31.08.2015 therefore assume significance.

34. We are guided by the recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttarakhand Vs Jagdish Chandra Khandpal & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 3070 of 2024 decided on 29.07.2026 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras 31 and 32 has held as under:-

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSAI N

31. This Court, in Suraj Parkash Gupta & Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors., 2001(1) SLJ 179 (SC) = (2000)7 SCC 561, applied precisely this framework to a default identical to the one before us, a failure of the State Government to refer ad hoc/stop-gap promotions to the Public Service Commission for years together. It held that the delay was caused by the State’s own inaction, and not by any fault of the employees; and the Regulation in question merely fixed a time-limit for reference and neither provides that service rendered without such reference becomes non est, nor did it prescribe any penalty for missing the time-limit. It was held that officiating service within an employee’s quota, rendered by an eligible person, would be counted, once the appointment is later regularised, even where the reference to the Commission was never in fact made. This approach is consistent with the earlier decisions of this Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 1990(2) SLJ 40 (SC) – (1990)2 SCC 715, and Aghore Nath Dey & Ors. (supra). The aforesaid view has been reiterated recently in P. Rammohan Rao (supra), wherein it was held that delay in regularisation caused by the Government’s own default, supports, rather than defeats, the employee’s claim.

32. We must apply this framework to the facts before us. It is true that the order of appointment dated 01.10.2007 described the promotion as a “stop-gap arrangement” and provided that the promotees would revert to the post of Tehsildar, once direct recruits reported for duty. No doubt, the Commission was not consulted. However, the consultation being a directory requirement, the default of consultation does not invalidate the ad hoc appointments by way of ad hoc promotions of the promotees to the post of Deputy Collector. It would not be fair to let the State take advantage of its own continuing default by treating the promotees’ ad hoc appointment, recommended by a duly constituted DPC and eventually regularised by competent authority, as bad in law. Therefore, non- consultation with the Commission does not disentitle the promotees to the benefit of proviso Rule 24(4) of the Rules. Accordingly, the first issue is answered.”

35. Then again the Apex court in Narinder Singh Negi &Anr Vs Dr Renu Sharma & Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 12791-12792 of 2026 decided on 08.09.2026, in paras 8 and 9, has held as under:

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSAI N

“8. We cannot but deprecate the conduct of the MCD; especially the apathy shown to the employees. The relaxation sought in the year 2006, was for promotion without holding a departmental examination, as the rules provided. Ad-hoc promotions were also made from the regular employees of the Corporation, who satisfied the eligibility conditions. The relaxation as decided by the resolution of the Corporation was forwarded to the Governor in the year 2006 itself. When the relaxation is approved by the Governor, even if it is after a decade and a half, the MCD cannot contend that regularization would only inure from the date of such relaxation as permitted by the Government. The relaxation to the rules was made by the MCD itself in the year 2006 and what was pending was an approval to that relaxation. When the approval is issued by the LG, it relates back to the date on which the relaxation had been granted.

9. We have no doubt in our minds that the appellants are entitled to regularization in the posts of JE from the date on which they were promoted on ad-hoc basis. We make it clear Page 5 of 7 that not only shall they be granted such regularization and every pecuniary benefit flowing from it but they shall also be considered for further promotions on the basis of eligibility alone, when their turn come for promotion and there is a vacancy available in the higher cadre, even retrospectively, on the date of such eligibility.”

36. In the present case applicants were ultimately granted regular promotion vide Office Order No. 34/2022 dated 19.05.2022, with their placement being recognized against vacancy year 2011–12 by modifying orders dated 28.05.2015 and 31.08.2015. The respondents, having accorded such placement to the applicants, were required to examine their claims for further promotion in the light of the said order and the applicable Recruitment Rules. Their cases could not have been excluded from consideration merely on the ground that the formal order of regular promotion was issued on 19.05.2022, without examining the respective dates from which they were regularly placed as Assistant Engineers (Electrical) and the consequential effect thereof on their qualifying service for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Electrical).

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSAI N

37. Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the eligibility of each of the applicants for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Electrical) [EE (Elect.)] by treating their services as regular AE w.e.f. 28.05.2015 and 31.08.2015, respectively, being the dates of their regular placement in the said posts, in accordance with the applicable Recruitment Rules and the relevant orders governing their regular placement.

38. Further, their cases shall be considered for promotion to the post of EE (Elect.) by reckoning the requisite qualifying service from the date of modified regularization order dated 28.05.2015 and 31.08.2015 and by convening a regular DPC, in accordance with the applicable rules and their respective seniority positions.

39. In the event any of the applicants is found eligible and suitable for promotion upon such consideration, the respondents shall extend to such applicant the consequential benefits admissible under the rules and in accordance with law.

40. The Original Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending MA(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Dr. Anand S. Khati)

(Harvinder Kaur Oberoi) Member (A)

Member (J)

/lg/

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSAI N