Krishna Kumar Singh vs HOME AFFAIRS on 5 November 2026

O R D E R

Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J): - Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was appointed as Junior Hindi Translator in the CSOLS Cadre of the Ministry of Home Affairs pursuant to the Junior Hindi Translators Examination, 2006, vide appointment order dated 24.10.2007 and joined service on 13.11.2007. He was initially posted in the Ministry of Home Affairs and continued their till 31.12.2012, whereafter he was transferred to the Department of Women and Child Development on his first promotion. It is the case of the applicant that his service has remained regular and uninterrupted throughout.

2. As per the seniority list of Junior Hindi Translators dated 01.11.2012, the applicant was placed at Serial No. 280, whereas Shri Vikram Singh and Shri Vinod Kumar were placed at Serial Nos. 281 and 282 respectively, and were thus junior to the applicant.

3. The applicant was granted ad hoc promotion as Senior Translation Officer vide order dated 28.12.2012. However, owing to compelling personal circumstances, he was desirous of returning to the Ministry of Home Affairs. According to the applicant, he was willing to revert to his substantive post for the said purpose, but the Department did not accede to his request. Consequently, he expressed his unwillingness to continue under the ad hoc arrangement and was reverted to his substantive post vide order dated 05.04.2013. The applicant submits that such reversion from an ARTI

ARTI

ad hoc promotion could not operate as a permanent bar against his consideration for regular promotion under the applicable Recruitment Rules. It is further stated that certain other Junior Translation Officers had also declined the said promotion.

4. The grievance of the applicant is that, despite his seniority in the feeder cadre, his name was not included in the promotion order dated 11.12.2017, whereas his immediate juniors, including Shri Vikram Singh and Shri Vinod Kumar, were promoted as Senior Translation Officers. According to the applicant, no reason for his exclusion was communicated to him, nor was there any disciplinary, vigilance, APAR or other administrative impediment against his consideration for promotion.

5. The applicant states that thereafter he approached the concerned authorities from time to time and was orally assured that the anomaly would be examined and rectified. However, no corrective action was taken. Subsequently, further officials junior to the applicant were promoted as Senior Translation Officers vide order dated 09.07.2019. The seniority list issued on 31.05.2022 also, according to the applicant, continued to reflect the prejudice caused to him on account of his non-promotion.

6. It is further argued that the applicant was ultimately promoted as Senior Translation Officer vide order dated 30.12.2024. According to the applicant, his subsequent promotion demonstrates that there was no continuing disqualification against him and that his earlier non- consideration for promotion requires examination through a Review DPC. ARTI

ARTI

7. In the meantime, the immediate juniors/batchmates of the applicant were promoted to the post of Assistant Director vide orders dated 29.12.2023, 29.10.2024 and 30.06.2025. The applicant, therefore, claims that his delayed promotion as Senior Translation Officer has resulted in a cascading loss of seniority and promotional opportunity vis-à-vis his immediate juniors.

8. The applicant accordingly stated a detailed representation dated 07.07.2026 before the competent authority seeking, inter alia, convening of a Review DPC in respect of the promotion exercise of 2017, ante-dating of his promotion as Senior Translation Officer from 30.12.2024 to 11.12.2017, restoration of his seniority and consequential consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Director at par with his immediate juniors/batchmates. The said representation is stated to be pending consideration.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents appears and seeks time to file reply.

10. Having regard to the nature of the grievance raised by the applicant and the fact that his representation dated 07.07.2026 is stated to be pending consideration, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the present O.A. at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim.

11. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to consider and decide the representation dated 07.07.2026 submitted by the applicant, by passing a ARTI

ARTI

reasoned and speaking order, after examining the relevant records and the applicable rules, including the applicant's claim regarding his non- consideration for promotion in 2017 and the consequential seniority and promotional benefits claimed by him.

12. Let the aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The decision so taken shall be communicated to the applicant forthwith.

13. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the applicant and the respondents shall take a decision independently, in accordance with law and the applicable rules.

14. The OA (diary No. 12008/2026) stands disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.

(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi) Member (A)

Member (J) /arti/ ARTI

ARTI