Union of India & Ors v. Ramesh Chandra Shukla

J U D G M E N T

NAVIN CHAWLA, J.

1 . This petition has ben filed chalenging the Order dated

29.05.2024 pased by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinaf O.A. No. 164/202 , titled Ramesh Chandra v. Union of India &

Ors. , alowing the said O.A. filed by the respondent herein with the folowing directions:

—6.1 We hereby set aside the imp rejecting the representation. We hold that he aplicant is entitled for grant of notional promotion w.e .f. 01.04.2016. Consequently, apropriate re - fixation order of pay be isued by the respondents. The aforesaid exercise shal be completed by the respondents within a

2 of

period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

6.2 It is made clear that the aplicant shal not be entitled for any arears w.e.f. 01.04.2016 till 21.07.2016."

Background to the Petition

2 . As a brief background of the facts in which the present petition arises, the respondent joined the Geological Survey of Ind ia on

18.03.1983 as a Junior Geologist (Group - A Oficer). He was promoted to the post of Senior Geologist on 15.09.19 , and further to the post of Director , on 12.03.201.

3 . On 2.01.2016 , t he S uplementary Departmental Promotion Comite ( "DPC ') for 15 v acancies for the year 2015 - 2016 and R egular DPC for 20 vacancies for the year 2016 - 17 were held simultaneously , for promotion to the post of Deputy Director General

(G) in the Geological Survey of India. In the C ombined E ligibility L ist prepared of the se D PCs, the DPC recomended 15 Oficers for the year 2016 - 17 . The name of the respondent apeared at Serial No.21, while t he last name in the extended panel recomended by the Suplementary DPC for the year 2015 - 16 was at S erial No.20 in the

Combined Eligibil ity List.

Therefore, t he respondent was recomended for promotion by the Regular DPC for the year 2016 - , with his name apearing at the top of the panel.

4 . It is the case of the petitioners that t he isuance of the ofer of promotion is subject to the ap roval of the Ministry of Mines , and i n the present case, the oficers recomended by the S uplementary

3 of

DPC for the year 2015 - 16 were given priority , and thus, the aproval regarding the isuance of the ofer of promotion to the oficers

recomended by the DPC for the year 2016 - 17 could not be granted

until the S uplementary DPC panel was exhausted.

5 . It is the case of the petitioners that subsequently, the Ministry of Mines vide L eter dated 20.07.2016 , aproved the isuance of ofer of promotion to the resp ondent along with 10 others from the panel of

2016 - 17. Acordingly, after completing al requisite formalities , the ofer of promotion was isued to the r espondent on 21.07.2016.

6 . The respondent retired on 30.06.2017, at the post of Deputy Director General of Geological Survey of India, Ministry of Mines.

7 . Agrieved by the fact that though the DPC for the year 2016 - 17 had ben concluded on 2.01.2016 and the vacancy for the post of Deputy Director General purportedly existed since 01.04.2016, yet the respond ent was promoted to the post of Deputy Director General only on 21.07.2016, depriving him of the eligibility of being considered for the grant of Non Functional Upgradation (NFU) to the next higher scale of Aditional Director General on completion of one year on

01.04.2017 before his retirement on 30.06.2017, the respondent submited representations dated

07.1.2016 ,

14.02.2017

and

05.09.2017. The said representations were, however, rejected by the Ministry of Mines vide Order dated 01.01.2018, which was comunicated to the respondent on 0 7 .02.2018 . The rejection was based on the ground that as per the DoPT OM No. 201/5/86 - Est.(D) dated 10.04.1989, promotion s have a prospective efect, even

4 of

in cases where vacancies relate to earlier years, and that in t he present case, there was no violation of the DoPT rules.

8 . Agrieved thereby, the respondent filed the above O.A. seking notional promotion to the post of Deputy Director General from

01.04.2016 and seking NFU to the post of Aditional Director General w ith efect from

01.04.2017, along with consequential benefits.

9 . The learned Tribunal noted that the R egular DPC for the year

2016 - 17 , held on 2.01.2016, for promotion to the post of Deputy Director General , provided a clear picture regarding the number of vacancies for the year 2016 - 2017 , including the vacancy which arose

on 31. 0 3.2016 . The learned Tribunal observed that the respondent ought to have ben considered for promotion as o n 31.03.2016, that is, when the vacancy became available . . Further, w hile ac knowledging that promotions are prospective in nature, the learned Tribunal held that this principle was not aplicable in the present case since the respondent was already with in the zone of consideration for the grant of promotion . The Tribunal further o bserved that the petitioners ought to have prepared a clear statement of the vacancy position before isuing the Order dated

21.07.2016 and should have reached a proper conclusion as to whether, upon the said post becoming vacant, the respondent ought to h ave ben granted promotion with efect from 01.04.2016.

. It held that once a DPC has recomended the name of an employe for promotion to a higher post, the promotion order should

5 of

not be delayed unles there are compeling reasons or impediment(s) under th e Rules and , in the present case, nothing has ben brought on record to establish the same. Consequently, the learned Tribunal alowed the said O.A. with the above - quoted directions.

. Agrieved thereby, the petitioners have filed the present petition.

Submi sions of the learned counsel for the petitioners

. The learned counsel for the petitioner s submits that the promotion of the respondent can take place only from the act ual date of his promotion and not from the date his name was recomended by the DPC for s uch promotion. In suport of this submision, he places reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. K.K. Vadera & Ors. , AIR 190 SC 42; Jagdish Ch. Patnaik & Ors. v. State of Orisa & Ors. , AIR 198 SC 1926; Govt. of West Be ngal & Ors. v. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors. , 2024 (14) SCALE 294, and of the High Court of Meghalaya in Andrew Shabong v. State of Meghalaya , 2023 SC OnLine Megh 12 . . He submits that in the present case, it was due to administrative reasons that the responden t could not be isued the promotion leter. He submits that priority was acorded to the oficers who had ben recomended under the S uplementary DPC for the year 2015 - 16, and the ofer of promotion to the oficers recomended by the Regular DPC for the y ear 2016 - 17 could not be made until the panel recomended by the S uplementary DPC for the year 2015 - 16 had ben exhausted.

6 of

. He submits that l ater, the respondent was apointed against the post vacated by one Shri N. Ramasuba Redy , who retired on

31.05.2

¶016However, a panel of 10 other oficers, along with the respondent , was promoted by a comon O rder dated 21.07.2016, clearly stipulating that the promotion wil take efect from the date of asumption of charge.

. He submits that in these circumstances, the respondent could not have claimed retrospective promotion.

Submisions of the learned counsel for the respondent

. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the last oficer from the panel of the Suplementary DPC for the yea r 2015 - 16 was promoted on 02.03.2016. He submits that t he respondent was at serial no. 1 in the panel of oficers to be promoted against the vacancy year 2016 - 17. He submits that i t is the petitioner s who delayed grant of actual promotion to the respondent , despite the DPC having already recomended the respondent for promotion, and there being no impediment to the respondent being granted such promotion prior to 3 0 .06 .2016.

. He submits that, in fact, the delay in granting promotion was mala fide , which is evident from the fact that even earlier the respondent had ben transfered from Bhopal to Bhubaneswar at the behest of a Member of Parliament from the Rajya Sabha.

. Placing reliance on the judgment dated 29.01.208 of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petitio n No. 5735/206 titled Union of India & Ors. v. Dr.Krishna Kumar Sinha & An r. , he submits that th e

7 of

promotion to the respondent should have ben given a retrospective efect , and the respondent should be entitled to the NFU benefit. He submits that a Specia l Leave Petition filed against the above judgment, being SLP(C) No. 2 35/ / D iary no. 19106/208, has ben dismised by the Supreme Court vide O rder dated

15.09.208.

. Further, p lacing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lt. Col. Suprita Cha ndel v. Union of India & Ors. , 2024 SC OnLine SC 364, he submits that once other oficer s of the Geological Survey of India had ben granted relief of retrospective promotion by the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Dr.Krishna Kumar Sinha

(supra) , the same benefit deserves to be acorded to the respondent herein on the principle of parity.

. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. N.R. Banerje,

(197) 9 SC 287 and of this Court in Dr.Sahadeva Singh v. Union of India , 2012 SC OnLine Del , he submits that it was t he obligation of the petitioners to ensure that there is no delay in making promotions and that the respondent was granted timely promotions.

. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in

Union o f India v. K.B. Rajoria , (20) 3 SC 562 , he submit s that where notional promotion is given , it is the period from the date of the notional promotion that is to be counted as regular service in the feder cadre for the purposes of future promotions . . He s ubmits that once an employe has ben adjudged fit for promotion , promotion against a vacancy is a fundamental right and a

8 of

condition of service. In suport, he places reliance on the judgment s of the Supreme Court in H.M. Singh v. Union of India , (201 4 ) 3 SC and Union of India v. Hemraj Singh Chauhan , (2010) 4 SC

290.

. He submits that the State canot take advantage of its own wrong and alow the injustice to perpetuate, especialy where its inaction has caused prejudice to the employe. In suport, he places reliance on

the judgment of the Supreme Court in P.N. Premachandran v. State of Kerala , (204) 1 SC 245 and Kusheshwar Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar , (207) 1 SC 47; of this Court in Govt. (NCT of Delhi) v. Rakesh Beniwal , 2014 SC OnLine Del 394; and of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Chander Kanta Verma v. State of Haryana and Others , 2018:PHC:01636.

. He submits that in the present case, al oficers in the previous

panel, that is, for the year 2015 - 16, had ben promoted by 02.03.20

¶16The vacancy, on which the respondent should have ben apointed , arose on 01.04.2016 . He submits that , therefore, the plea of the petitioner s that, because of certain functional requirements, the promotions were delayed , canot be acepted as a valid r eason.

Analysis and Findings

. We have considered the submisions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

. From the above naration of facts, it would emerge that the respondent was considered by the Regular DPC held on 2.01.2016

9 of

for the year 2016 - 17 for 20 vacancies for the post of Deputy Director General (G) in the Geological Survey of India. Simultaneously, a

S uplementary DPC was also held for the year 2015 - 16, in which 15 vacancies were recomended to be filed . T he name of the respondent was pla ced at Serial No. 21 , that is, at the top of the 2016 - 2017 panel . . Though there is some dispute on when the vacancy arose against which the respondent was to be apointed, the fact remains that the eventual promotion order was isued to the respondent only

on 21. .2016. As the respondent superanuated on 30.06.2017, he could not complete the one - year period required for the grant of the NFU to the next higher scale of Aditional Director General . . While we do apreciate that the same would have some financ ial repercusion s for the respondent, at the same time, the law mandates that the promotion must take place from the date it is granted. Merely because vacancies exist , or that the name of the oficer has ben recomended by the DPC for promotion , the same

wil not create a right in such oficer to claim promotion til it is actualy granted. It is only in exceptional cases , where the Court finds that the delay in grant of promotion is mala fide or on facts completely unreasonable or arbitrary, that the Cou rt may, in its discretion, interfere with the same. In our view, no such case has ben made out

by the respondent in the facts of the present case. In fact, in similar circumstances in Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra), the Supreme Court, while considering the cas e of an oficer whose name had ben recomended by the DPC for promotion before his retirement, but who did not

1 of * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 05.08.2025 Pronounced on : 24.09.2025 + W.P.(C) 16274/2024 & CM APL. 68494/2024 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .Petitione rs Through: Mr.Jaswinder Singh, Adv. versus RAMESH CHANDRA SHUKLA .Respondent Through: Mr.Deptanshu Shukla & Mr.Gaurav Pal, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN