CHUNE LAL BADSHAH vs CAG on 4 November 2026

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr.B.Anand, Member (A):

By way of the present Original Application (O.A.), filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has assailed the order dated 07.07.2021, whereby his representation seeking consideration for promotion to the post of Senior Accounts Officer (SAO), along with consequential revision of pay and pension, was rejected. The applicant seeks deemed promotion to the post of SAO with effect from 16.05.2007, along with all consequential benefits.

2. The brief factual matrix of the case is that the applicant entered service as an Auditor on 22.05.1973. He was subsequently promoted to the post of Section Officer on 26.11.1985, Assistant Accounts Officer on 05.04.1990, and Accounts Officer (AO) on 16.05.2005. He retired from service on 31.07.2007. The applicant’s grievance is that his immediate junior, Shri S. K. Koul, who had also entered service in 1973 and retired in 2010, was subsequently promoted to the post of Senior Accounts Officer (SAO), whereas the applicant retired from service as an AO. He, therefore, contends that he was also entitled to consideration for promotion to the post of SAO, particularly in view of the promotion granted to his immediate junior.

3. The Original Application was earlier dismissed by order dated 18.03.2025. The applicant thereafter filed R.A. No. 151/2025 in O.A. No. 846/2023. By order dated 03.08.2026, the Review Application was allowed. The Tribunal noted that, owing to the similarity of names, the ANJALI

ANJALI

service particulars of Shri Surender Kumar Koul, appointed in 1981 and retired in 2016, had mistakenly been considered instead of those of the applicant’s actual immediate junior, Shri S. K. Koul, who had entered service in 1973 and retired in 2010. The Tribunal held that this mistaken comparison constituted an error apparent on the face of the record. The matter is, therefore, being considered afresh.

4. The applicant, appearing in person, submits that his claim was not examined with reference to the service particulars of his actual immediate junior, Shri S. K. Koul. He relies upon DoPT O.M. No. 22011/9/98-Estt.(D) dated 08.09.1998, particularly paragraphs 8 and 9, and contends that the crucial date for determining eligibility is 1 January of the relevant vacancy year. He submits that he completed two years of service as AO on 16.05.2007 and ought to have been considered for promotion before his retirement on 31.07.2007.

5. Paragraph 8 of the DoPT O.M. dated 08.09.1998, relied upon by the applicant, states: “As per the Model Calendar, since the DPC would be convened in the year preceding the vacancy year, the DPC may have to consider some of the officers who are to retire in the vacancy year itself. There may be similar other eventualities. Therefore, in order to have effective panels, DPC may have to provide for an extended panel subject to the parameters prescribed vide this Department’s Office Memorandum No.22011/18/87-Estt.(D) dated April 9, 1996.”

6. Paragraph 9 of the same O.M. provides: “The crucial date for determining eligibility in case of financial year-based vacancy year would fall on January 1, immediately preceding such vacancy year and in case of calendar year-based vacancy year also, the first day of the vacancy year i.e. January 1 itself would be taken as the crucial date. To illustrate the point, January 1, 2000 would ANJALI

ANJALI

be the crucial date for the vacancy year 2000 (calendar year) as well as vacancy year 2000-2001 (financial year).”

7. The applicant also refers to the Recruitment Rules notified in 2019, which provide for a combined qualifying service, and to six temporary posts sanctioned in 1993 for Kashmiri migrants. He submits that the respondents ought to have examined whether those posts or the extended-panel instructions could have enabled his consideration for promotion. He accordingly seeks setting aside of the impugned order, deemed promotion from 16.05.2007 and consequential pay and pensionary benefits.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the Original Application and submits that promotion to the post of SAO is governed by the applicable Recruitment Rules, the prescribed qualifying service, availability of vacancies, assessment by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), APAR gradings, vigilance and integrity clearance, and other applicable instructions issued by the Government of India from time to time. It is contended that the applicant was promoted to the post of AO only on 16.05.2005 and, therefore, had not completed the requisite two years of regular service in that grade as on the crucial dates of 01.01.2006 and 01.01.2007. Consequently, he was not eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of SAO in the relevant panel years.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that, had the applicant continued in service, he would have become eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of SAO with effect from 01.01.2008, in terms of the applicable Recruitment Rules, namely GSR- 234, read in conjunction with the DoPT O.M. dated 08.09.1998. ANJALI

ANJALI

10. Learned counsel for the respondents has reiterated the stand taken in the detailed written submissions and particularly emphasised the following 2 points:- “(b) …It is reiterated that promotions in Senior Accounts Officer cadre is not regulated as per the recruitment rules of the cadre (GSR 234) only but the same are in conjunction with the Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) O.M. No.22011/9/98- Estt(D) dated 08.09.1998 (determining eligibility as on 1st January of the panel year), APAR grading, integrity of the official, disciplinary cases, vacancy position and other instructions issued by the G.O.I from time to time. ...”

(j) Moreover, Paragraph 8 of DPC Act (guidelines)1998 states ‘as per the Model Calendar, since the DPC would be convened in the year preceding the vacancy year, the DPC may have to consider some of the officers who are to retire in the vacancy year itself’. However, this para is also linked directly with the availability of vacancies. It does not indicate that those officials/officers who cannot be promoted owing to non- availability of vacancy or due to short of required length of service shall be considered for promotion in the panel year but this paragraph indicates that those officials/officers who fulfills the eligibility criteria shall be considered for promotion even if they retire in the same panel year and this rule is/was followed strictly.”

11. With regard to the applicant’s reliance upon the DoPT instructions, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the extended-panel provisions do not dispense with the requirement of qualifying service or availability of vacancies. In this regard, the respondents have stated in their written submissions that “Promotions from AO to Sr. AO are not governed by Para No.8,9,10 of OM dated 1996 only but these are directly linked to the availability of vacancies, subject to fulfillment of other criteria viz. recruitment rules of the cadre, in conjunction with the Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) O.M. No.22011/9/98-Estt(D) dated 08.09.1998 APAR grading, integrity of the ANJALI

ANJALI

official, disciplinary cases, vacancy position and other instructions issued by the G.O.I. from time to time.”

12. Regarding the applicant’s contention that he could have been adjusted against the six temporary posts sanctioned for Kashmiri migrants, learned counsel for the respondents, by referring to the counter affidavit, submits as follows: “F. …It is stated that since the 06 CT posts were sanctioned by office of the Comptroller & Auditor General of India on 08.04.1993 and this office was allowed to make promotions on these CT posts upto 1997. In 1997, the operation of these 06 CT posts was reviewed and competent authority in the Headquarters’ office vide letter No.2374/BRS/374-94 dated 31.07.1997 conveyed their continuance for their utilization for adjustment of such migrants who were willing to return to Jammu and were fulfilling criteria of posting back to Jammu. Accordingly, further promotions to these CT posts were stopped and were kept for adjustment of migrants at B.O. Jammu and as per orders of the sanctioning authority conveyed vide letter No.2374/BRS/374-91 dated 31.07.1997 no further promotions were made against these 06 CT posts upto 2001 i.e., till the time the PIP equaled to the Sanctioned Strength. Thereon as and when any vacancy arose against the regular sanctioned strength, promotions were made.”

13. The applicant has also filed rejoinder in which he has submitted nothing new except the grounds which he has already raised in the OA.

14. We have heard the applicant in person and learned counsel for the respondents and have carefully gone through the pleadings and material available on record. We have also taken note of the fact that the applicant is a senior citizen and, during the course of hearing, was suffering from throat cancer, which made his submissions barely audible. We have, therefore, carefully considered the contentions raised by him and the material placed on record. ANJALI

ANJALI

15. The issue that arises for our consideration is whether, having regard to the applicable eligibility conditions and the relevant crucial date, the applicant is entitled to deemed promotion to the post of SAO with effect from 16.05.2007 and the consequential revision of his pay and pension.

16. At the outset, we take note of the order dated 03.08.2026 passed in R.A. No. 151/2025. The said order corrected the error in the earlier decision arising from the consideration of the service particulars of an officer having a similar name but a different service history. The applicant’s claim is accordingly examined with reference to his actual immediate junior, Shri S. K. Koul.

17. However, the fact that the applicant’s immediate junior was subsequently promoted does not, by itself, confer an automatic right to promotion upon the applicant. The applicant’s claim must be examined in accordance with the applicable Recruitment Rules and the prescribed eligibility conditions.

18. It is an admitted position that the applicant was promoted to the post of AO on 16.05.2005 and completed two years of service in that grade on 16.05.2007. The respondents have contended that eligibility for the relevant panel years was determined with reference to the crucial dates of 01.01.2006 and 01.01.2007. On the crucial date of 01.01.2007, the applicant had not completed the prescribed two years of regular service in the grade of AO. The fact that he completed the qualifying service on 16.05.2007 does not, by itself, establish a right to promotion from that date, where the applicable instructions require eligibility to be determined with reference to an earlier crucial date. ANJALI

ANJALI

19. We have also considered the applicant’s reliance upon paragraphs 8 and 9 of the DoPT O.M. dated 08.09.1998. Paragraph 8 provides for the preparation of an extended panel in specified circumstances, including where an officer is due to retire during the vacancy year. However, the provision is expressly subject to the parameters prescribed under the DoPT O.M. dated 09.04.1996 and does not dispense with the qualifying service prescribed under the applicable Recruitment Rules. Similarly, paragraph 9 stipulates the crucial date for determining eligibility and does not confer an independent right to promotion upon an officer who completes the prescribed qualifying service after the relevant crucial date. Thus, the extended-panel provision cannot be construed to confer eligibility upon an officer who does not fulfill the prescribed eligibility criteria on the relevant crucial date merely because he is due to retire during the vacancy year. The applicant’s claim, therefore, cannot be sustained on the basis of the aforesaid DoPT instructions.

20. We have also considered the applicant’s reliance upon the Recruitment Rules notified in 2019. The said Rules were notified long after the applicant’s retirement on 31.07.2007 and, in the absence of any provision providing for their retrospective application, cannot be invoked to create a promotion entitlement for the vacancy year 2007. Further, the applicant has not established any rule-based entitlement to relaxation of the prescribed qualifying service. In the absence of any such provision, this Tribunal cannot direct the respondents to relax the eligibility criteria merely on equitable considerations or on the ground that the applicant was nearing retirement. ANJALI

ANJALI

21. The applicant’s contention regarding the six temporary posts sanctioned for Kashmiri migrants also does not establish his entitlement to promotion. The respondents have stated that, following the decision of the competent authority in 1997, the said posts were retained for adjustment of eligible migrants willing to return to Jammu and that further promotions against those posts were discontinued. The material placed before us does not establish that any of those posts was available for regular promotion in the applicant’s case or that the applicant was eligible for consideration against them.

22. In these circumstances, no direction for promotion against the aforesaid temporary posts can be issued.

23. As regards the applicant’s claim for stepping up of pay under FR 22 and consequential revision of pension, such relief cannot be granted merely on the ground that an officer who was junior to the applicant in the cadre ultimately drew higher pay or pension upon promotion to a higher post. The applicant retired as AO, whereas his actual immediate junior subsequently attained the post of SAO. However, in the absence of an established entitlement to promotion, no consequential right to stepping up of pay or revision of pension arises.

24. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we find that although the earlier decision required reconsideration on account of the mistaken identification of the applicant’s comparator, a fresh examination of the service particulars of the applicant and his actual immediate junior does not alter the position regarding the applicant’s eligibility for promotion. The applicant had not completed the prescribed qualifying service in the grade of AO as on the relevant ANJALI

ANJALI

crucial date, i.e., 01.01.2007, and was, therefore, not eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of SAO in the relevant panel year. The subsequent completion of the prescribed qualifying service on 16.05.2007 does not confer an automatic right to promotion from that date. Accordingly, we find no sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 07.07.2021.

25. Accordingly, the present Original Application is dismissed. The pending M.A., if any, also stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

(B. Anand)

(R.N. Singh) Member (A)

Member(J)

/anjali/ ANJALI

ANJALI