The Delhi High Court on Wednesday quashed a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order that had directed the Union government to give a Geological Survey of India (GSI) officer notional promotion from April 2016. The division bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain held that promotions take effect only from the date they are actually granted, not when the vacancy arises.
Background
The case revolved around Ramesh Chandra Shukla, a veteran officer who joined the GSI in 1983 and rose through the ranks to become Director in 2011. When vacancies opened for the post of Deputy Director General (DDG) in early 2016, a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) placed Shukla at the top of the panel for 2016–17. However, the Ministry of Mines gave priority to officers from a supplementary 2015–16 panel and cleared Shukla’s promotion only in July 2016.
By then, the clock was ticking. Shukla retired in June 2017, barely 11 months after assuming the DDG post. This prevented him from completing the mandatory one-year service required for a higher pay-scale benefit known as Non Functional Upgradation (NFU). Aggrieved, he moved CAT, arguing that his promotion should be deemed effective from April 2016, when the vacancy arose.
CAT agreed, directing the Centre to grant him notional promotion from April 1, 2016 and re-fix his pay, though without arrears for the three-and-a-half months before his actual appointment.
Court’s Observations
The Union of India challenged the order, saying promotions cannot be backdated except in rare cases. Their counsel stressed that Shukla’s promotion was delayed only because the earlier panel had to be exhausted first. “The law is settled that promotions are prospective,” the government argued, citing several Supreme Court rulings.
Shukla’s lawyers countered that the delay was arbitrary and even mala fide. They claimed officers in similar situations had earlier been granted retrospective promotions and cited judgments to bolster their case.
But the bench was unconvinced. Referring to the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Dr. Amal Satpathi, Justice Chawla noted: “Promotion only becomes effective upon assumption of duties on the promotional post and not on the date of occurrence of the vacancy or recommendation.”
The judges observed that while Shukla was undoubtedly entitled to be considered, he could not demand the benefits of a post he had not served in. The court also underlined that no mala fide intent by the authorities had been proven.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court directs reconsideration of dismissed constable’s case under 2015 CAPF medical guidelines
Concluding the matter, the bench held that the CAT order “cannot be sustained” and set it aside. “Unless it is found that the inaction of the petitioner was mala fide or unreasonable, the general rule must apply,” the court ruled.
The writ petition filed by the Union of India was accordingly allowed.
Case Title: Union of India & Ors. v. Ramesh Chandra Shukla
Case No: W.P.(C) 16274/2024 & CM APPL. 68494/2024
