Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ramendra Kumar vs New Delhi Municipal Council on 25 February, 2026
1
Item No. 21 - Court 3
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
New Delhi
OA No. 2623/2025
This the 25th day of February, 2026
Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member(A)
1. RAMENDRA KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O SHRI B.P. SINGH
R/O B-3, 2nd FLOOR, ΚΗ. ΝΟ. 827/1, BURARI, DELHI 110084
WORKING AS PGT (COMPUTER SCIENCE/IP) IN ATAL ADARSH
VIDYALAYA LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003
2. MUKESH KUMAR SHARMA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/O 18 NEW LAYAL PUR,
S/O LATE G.L. SHARMA
KRISHNA NAGAR, DELHI-110051
WORKING AS PGT (COMPUTER SCIENCE/IP)
IN ATAL ADARSH VIDYALAYA BAPUDHAM, NEW DELHI-110021
...Applicants
(By Advocates: Mr. R K Shukla)
Versus
1. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN PALIKA KENDRA,
PARLIAMENT STREET NEW DELHI 110001
2. THE SECRETARY
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
PALIKA KENDRA, PARLIAMENT STREET NEW DELHI 110001
3. THE DIRECTOR (EDUCATION)
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
PALIKA KENDRA, PARLIAMENT STREET NEW DELHI 110001
4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR (EDUCATION ESTABLISHMENT)
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
PALIKA KENDRA, PARLIAMENT STREET
NEW DELHI 110001
...RESPONDENTS
(By Advocate: Mr. Nirvikar Verma)
SOURJYA
SOBHANIYA
2
Item No. 21 - Court 3
O R D E R(Oral)
Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member(J) The present OA has been filed by the applicants, two in number, seeking modification of the order dated 03.10.2024 whereby they have been promoted from TGT to PGT (Computer Science) in Pay Level-8.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that they were fully eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of PGT (Computer Science) in the year 2017 itself. However, for reasons not attributable to them, the DPC could not be convened at the relevant time. The applicants had approached the respondents vide representations dated 28.12.2017, followed by subsequent reminders, but the same remained unanswered.
3. Ultimately, the DPC was convened on 02.09.2024. The applicants were considered against the vacancy year 2017 and were found fit for promotion. They were accordingly promoted vide order dated 03.10.2024 and have since joined the post.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that having been considered and found fit against the vacancy year 2017, they deserve to be treated as PGT (Computer Science) from the said year for the purposes of seniority and consequential eligibility of service for next post in heirarchy. It is contended that the delay in convening the DPC is wholly attributable to the respondents and the applicants cannot be made to suffer for the same.
SOURJYA SOBHANIYA 3 Item No. 21 - Court 3
5. To further strengthen his arguments, learned counsel for the applicant relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nirmal Chandra Bhattacharjee and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.
JT1991(5)SC35. More specifically on Para 5 of the same which reads as under:-
"One of the principles of service is that any rule does not work to prejudice of an employee who was in service prior to that date. Admittedly the vacancies against which appellants were promoted had occurred prior to restructuring of these posts. It is further not disputed that various other posts to which class TV employees could be promoted were filled prior to 1st August 1983. The selection process in resects of Ticket Collectors had also started prior to 1st August 1983 if the department would have proceeded with the selection well within time and would have completed it before 1st August 1983 then the appellants would have become Ticket Collectors without any difficulty. The mistake or delay on the part of the department, therefore, should not be permitted to recoil on the appellants. Para '31' of the restructuring order itself provides that vacancies in various grades of posts covered in different categories existing on 31st July 1983 would be filled in accordance with the procedure which was in vogue before 1st August, 1983."
6. He also relies on another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramesh Kr. Vs. Union of India and Ors in Civil Appeal No. 811 of 2007 dated 31.07.2015 to contend that once an employee is granted ante-dated seniority pursuant to a review or subsequent DPC, the employer cannot arbitrarily deny consequential benefits. It would be submitted that having been found fit against an earlier vacancy year, the applicants cannot be deprived of the attendant benefits merely by invoking the principle of "no work no pay."
SOURJYA SOBHANIYA 4 Item No. 21 - Court 3 He further relies on the following decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to reinforce his arguments:-
6.1. Dr. Sahadeva Singh Vs. UoI and Ors in WPC No. 5549/2007 dated 28.02.2012 6.2. Union of India Vs. Deep Chand Sharma and Ors in WPC No. 2904/2014 dated 27.09.2019 6.3. Dr. Sunil Kumar Mehra Vs. MCD and Anr in WPC No. 2059/2012 dated 08.05.2026.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant draws attention to the DoPT OM dated 14.12.2000 referred to in Sahadev Singh (supra) and submits that that the same mandates strict adherence to the Model Calendar for convening DPCs and treats non-adherence as a serious lapse requiring fixation of responsibility. He submits that the failure to convene the DPC for PGT (Computer Science) in 2017, despite vacancies and availaibility of eligible candidates, is in direct violation of binding executive instructions. Therefore, the applicants cannot be made to suffer in matters of seniority on account of the respondents' admitted administrative lapse.
8. He submits that administrative delay cannot be permitted to prejudice eligible employees. Since the vacancies admittedly pertain to the year 2017 and the applicants were eligible at that time, the respondents' failure to convene the DPC cannot defeat their rightful claim to seniority of that vacancy year.
9. Pursuant to notice, the respondents have filed their reply. In para 3 thereof, it has been admitted that SOURJYA SOBHANIYA 5 Item No. 21 - Court 3 DPCs for other subjects were convened for the years 2017, 2019 and 2023; however, for some reason, the DPC for PGT (CS/IT) could not be convened. It is stated that in terms of DoPT instructions, a year-wise DPC was ultimately convened in September, 2024, wherein both applicants were found fit against the vacancy year 2017.
10. The respondents further contend that in terms of DoPT O.M. dated 10.04.1989, promotion can have only prospective effect and the applicants cannot be granted any benefit merely because they were found fit against an earlier vacancy year. According to the respondents, the applicants are to be counted for all purposes, including eligibility service, only from the date of their actual promotion/joining.
11. It is also submitted that the next promotional post is that of Vice Principal, for which the Recruitment Rules require five years' regular service in the PGT grade for eligibility.
12. Learned counsel for the respondents draws attention to Para 21 of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Government of West Bengal and Ors Vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi and Ors. 2024 INSC 906, which reads as under:-
"21. While we recognize respondent No. 1's right to be considered for promotion, which is a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India, he does not hold an absolute right to the promotion itself. The legal precedents discussed above establish that promotion only becomes effective upon the assumption of duties on the promotional post and not on the date of occurrence of the vacancy or the date of recommendation Considering that respondent No. 1 superannuated before his promotion was effectuated, he is not entitled to retrospective financial SOURJYA SOBHANIYA 6 Item No. 21 - Court 3 benefits associated to the promotional post of Chief Scientific Officer, as he did not serve in that capacity"
He submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court has elucidated that promotion only becomes effective upon the assumption of duties on the promotional post and not on the date of occurrence of the vacancy or the date of recommendation.
13. He also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhupinder Kumar Malik Vs. Union of India and Anr in WPC No. 14156/2009 dated 08.08.2025, more specifically on Paras 32, 62 and 63 of the same, which are reproduced herein below:-
"32. Fourthly, before proceeding on his main line of argumentation, Mr. Behera sought to persuade the Court that in case of the existence of i) a vacancy, ii) an eligible candidate, and iii) no conscious decision, nor valid reason, provided for keeping such a post unfilled, that - where an eligible candidate is promoted later, such candidate is entitled to ante-dating of promotion with effect from the date of attaining eligibility to the relevant post.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
62. At the outset, we reject the argument of Mr. Behera that a right to ante-dating of promotion arises in case a post that has remained unfilled, without reason, where an eligible candidate exists, who is promoted at a later point in time.
63. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in countless judgments that an indefeasible right to promotion does not arise merely because a post lies vacant while an eligible candidate exists."
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the law is now well settled that no indefeasible right to promotion, much less to ante-dated promotion, arises merely because (i) a vacancy existed and (ii) an employee was eligible. The Supreme Court has categorically rejected the proposition that an unfilled post, without SOURJYA SOBHANIYA 7 Item No. 21 - Court 3 more, automatically entitles a later-promoted employee to retrospective promotion.
14. He argues that ante-dating is not a natural or automatic consequence of delay. Unless the applicants establish arbitrariness, mala fides, or a deliberate decision to unjustifiably keep the post vacant, no right to retrospective promotion can be claimed. Therefore, even if the DPC for 2017 was held belatedly, the applicants cannot, as a matter of right, seek ante-dated regular service or consequential eligibility benefits from that year.
15. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that a combined tentative seniority list of PGTs was issued on 20.03.2025, wherein the applicants have been placed as per their date of actual promotion. The applicants have submitted objections dated 25.03.2025. The final combined seniority list is yet to be issued.
16. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.
17. The factual aspects in the present case are on a narrow compass. Although various decisions have been referred to by both sides, none are entirely similar on facts to the present case.
18. In the present case, it is an admitted position that:
(i) DPCs for other subjects were held in the years 2017, 2019 and 2023;
(ii) there is no satisfactory explanation as to why the DPC for PGT Computer Science was not convened at the relevant time;
SOURJYA SOBHANIYA 8 Item No. 21 - Court 3
(iii) the applicants have been found fit and recommended for promotion against the vacancy year 2017;
(iv) the combined seniority list of PGTs is yet to be finalized and
(v) the applicants had been approaching the respondents for timely conduct of the DPC in terms of the DoPT Model Calendar, but the same was not adhered to.
19. The aforementioned facts would go the show that the applicants have been alive to their cause and have been reminding respondents of their duty and the rule position concerning DPC. It is the respondents who have failed to conduct the DPC in time and no reason for delay in conducting the DPC is available. Furthermore the applicants have approached the tribunal in time before the seniority list is finalized and after objecting to the proposed depressed seniority.
20. In such peculiar facts and circumstances, and in order to balance the relief, in our opinion, the present OA can be disposed of with the following directions:
20.1. Respecting the recommendations of the duly constituted DPC, whereby the applicants have been found fit against the vacancy year 2017, they shall be granted placement in the combined seniority list along with other promotees of the vacancy year 2017.
20.2. However, for the purpose of consideration for further promotion to the post of Vice Principal, the applicants shall be considered only upon completion of SOURJYA SOBHANIYA 9 Item No. 21 - Court 3 the eligibility service i.e. requisite five years' regular service in the PGT grade, in terms of the applicable Recruitment Rules, reckoned from the date of their actual promotion/joining.
20.3. There shall, however, be no bar upon the respondents to consider the applicants for ad hoc promotion to the next post, if the need so arises, in accordance with rules and administrative requirements.
21. No other arguments or contentions were raised by either side beyond those noticed hereinabove.
22. The OA stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Pending MAs, if any, are also disposed of. No costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member(A) Member(J)
/ss/
SOURJYA
SOBHANIYA