Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh

Hari Chand vs National Informatics Centre on 23 April, 2026

                                                                           ​1​              ​(O.A.No.060/528/2022)​


                                        ​CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL​
                                                ​CHANDIGARH BENCH​
                                                          ​O.A.No.060/528/2022​
                                            ​Chandigarh, Order Reserved: 06.03.2026​
                                                               ​Pronounced: 23.04.2026​

                               ​ ORAM:​
                               C
                              ​HON'BLE MR. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J)​
                                  ​HON'BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A)​

​Hari​ ​Chand​ ​son​ ​of​ ​Sh.​ ​Bhana​ ​Ram,​ ​age​ ​60​ ​years,​ ​presently​ ​working​ ​as​ ​Scientist-E, National Informatics Centre, Haryana State Unit, Chandigarh​ ​(Group-A)​ ​...Applicant​ ​[By Advocate: Mr. Rishav Sharma]​ ​VERSUS​ ​Union​ ​of​ ​India​ ​through​​Secretary,​​Ministry​​of​​Electronics​​and​​Information​ ​Technology,​ ​National​ ​Informatics​ ​Centre,​ ​A-Block,​ ​CGO​ ​Complex,​ ​Lodhi​ ​Road, New Delhi-110003​ ​...Respondent​ ​[By Advocate: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC with Mr. Pankaj Khurana]​ ​ R D E R​ O ​Per: RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J):​ ​1.​ ​The​ ​present​ ​Original​ ​Application​ ​is​ ​directed​ ​against​ ​order​ ​dated​ ​27.05.2022​ ​(Annexure​​A-1)​​vide​​which​​the​​promotion​​of​​the​​applicant​​as​ ​Scientist-E​ ​has​ ​been​ ​cancelled​ ​with​ ​retrospective​ ​effect​ ​i.e.​ ​29.10.2012​ ​and​ ​notification​ ​dated​ ​27.05.2022​ ​(Annexure​ ​A-2)​ ​whereby​ ​the​ ​cancellation​​of​​promotion​​has​​been​​notified.​​The​​applicant​​has​​prayed​​for​ ​reliefs as under:​ ​"a.​ ​That​ ​Annexure​ ​A-1​ ​dated​ ​27.05.2022​ ​and​ ​A-2​ ​dated​ ​27.05.2022​ ​be​ ​quashed​ ​and​ ​set​ ​aside​ ​being​ ​violative​ ​of​ ​principles​ ​of​ ​natural​ ​justice​ ​as​ ​well as also against the spirit of Scheme 19.09.2016 (Annexure A-10).​ ​b.​​It​​be​​declared​​that​​no​​reversion​​order​​can​​be​​passed​​with​​retrospective​ ​effect.​ 2026.05.08 ​c.​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​be​ ​held​ ​entitled​ ​to​​all​​retiral​​benefits​​on​​the​​basis​​of​​his​ SHIVAM 15:38:40 +05'30' ​promotion as Scientist-E w.e.f. 01.06.2022 with interest.​ ​d.​​That​​this​​Hon'ble​​Tribunal​​may​​also​​pass​​any​​other​​order​​for​​the​​grant​ ​of​ ​relief​ ​to​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​which​ ​it​ ​may​ ​deem​ ​fit​ ​in​ ​the​ ​peculiar​ ​facts​​and​ ​circumstances of the case.​ ​2​ ​(O.A.No.060/528/2022)​ ​e.​ ​That​ ​cost​ ​of​ ​the​ ​application​ ​may​ ​also​ ​be​ ​awarded​ ​in​ ​favour​ ​of​ ​the​ ​applicant."​ ​2.​​Facts​ ​of​ ​the​ ​case​ ​in​ ​brief​ ​are​ ​as​ ​follows.​​The​​applicant​​was​​appointed​ ​as​ ​Scientific​ ​Officer-B​ ​in​ ​the​ ​pay​ ​scale​ ​of​ ​Rs.​ ​2000-3500​ ​at​ ​National​ ​Informatics​ ​Centre,​ ​Bhiwani​ ​w.e.f.​ ​20.04.1988​ ​vide​ ​notification​ ​dated​ ​04.05.1988​​(Annexure​​A-3).​​Subsequently,​​the​​applicant​​was​​promoted​​to​ ​the​ ​post​ ​of​ ​Scientist-B​ ​w.e.f.​ ​01.01.1992​ ​in​ ​the​ ​pay​ ​scale​ ​of​ ​Rs.​ ​2200-4000​​under​​the​​then​​prevailing​​Recruitment​​Rules,​​i.e.,​​prior​​to​​the​ ​introduction​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Flexible​ ​Complementing​ ​Scheme​ ​(FCS),​ ​vide​ ​notification​ ​dated​ ​15.07.1992​ ​(Annexure​ ​A-4).​ ​Thereafter,​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​was​​promoted​​to​​the​​post​​of​​Scientist-C​​in​​the​​year​​1998​​in​​the​​pay​​scale​ ​of Rs. 10000-15200.​ ​3.​ ​The​ ​Department​ ​of​ ​Personnel​ ​and​ ​Training​ ​introduced​ ​the​ ​Flexible​ ​Complementing​ ​Scheme​ ​(FCS)​ ​for​ ​scientific​ ​departments​ ​vide​ ​OM​ ​dated​ ​09.11.1998​ ​(Annexure​ ​A-5),​ ​making​ ​scientists​ ​eligible​ ​for​ ​in-situ​ ​promotions​ ​upon​ ​completion​​of​​the​​prescribed​​residency​​period.​​The​​said​ ​scheme​ ​was​ ​further​ ​clarified​ ​vide​ ​OM​ ​dated​​17.07.2002​​(Annexure​​A-6),​ ​providing​ ​that​ ​promotions​ ​would​ ​be​ ​prospective​ ​and​ ​linked​ ​to​ ​crucial​ ​dates,​ ​namely​ ​1st​ ​January​ ​and​ ​1st​ ​July​ ​of​ ​each​ ​year.​ ​Further,​ ​vide​ ​OM​ ​dated​ ​16.09.2010​ ​(Annexure​ ​A-7),​ ​the​ ​FCS​ ​was​ ​revised​ ​based​ ​on​ ​the​ ​recommendations​ ​of​ ​the​ ​6th​ ​Central​ ​Pay​ ​Commission,​ ​effective​ ​from​ ​01.01.2011.​ ​Additional​ ​guidelines​ ​regarding​ ​assessment​ ​norms​ ​were​ ​issued​ ​vide​ ​OM​ ​dated​ ​21.09.2012​ ​(Annexure​ ​A-8),​ ​emphasizing​ ​merit-based evaluation for promotions.​ ​4.​ ​In​ ​terms​ ​of​ ​the​ ​FCS,​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​was​ ​assessed​ ​and​ ​promoted​ ​to​ ​the​ ​post​ ​of​ ​Scientist-D​ ​in​ ​the​ ​pay​ ​scale​ ​of​ ​Rs.​ ​12000-16500​ ​w.e.f.​ ​20.09.2004​ ​vide​ ​notification​ ​(Annexure​ ​A-9).​ ​Thereafter,​ ​the​ ​respondent​ ​department​​issued​​a​​new​​Personnel​​Policy​​for​​Group​​'A'​​S&T​​Officers​​vide​ 2026.05.08 ​OM​ ​dated​ ​19.09.2016​ ​(Annexure​ ​A-10).​ ​The​ ​policy​ ​prescribed​ ​eligibility​ SHIVAM 15:38:40 +05'30' ​conditions​ ​for​ ​promotion​ ​to​ ​Scientist-E,​ ​including​ ​minimum​ ​residency​ ​requirements,​ ​and​ ​stipulated​ ​that​ ​the​ ​policy​ ​would​ ​take​ ​retrospective​ ​effect​ ​from​ ​01.01.2011.​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​has​ ​averred​ ​that​ ​Clause​ ​9​ ​of​ ​the​ ​policy​ ​provided​ ​that​ ​reviews​ ​already​ ​conducted​ ​since​ ​2011​ ​under​ ​earlier​ ​3​ ​(O.A.No.060/528/2022)​ ​FCS/MFCS​ ​policies​ ​would​ ​be​ ​treated​​as​​having​​been​​done​​under​​the​​new​ ​policy and that past review cases would not be reopened.​ ​5.​​Pursuant​ ​to​ ​the​ ​said​ ​policy,​ ​the​ ​case​ ​of​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​was​ ​considered​ ​vide​ ​OM​ ​dated​ ​28.02.2017.​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​was​ ​found​ ​prima​ ​facie​​eligible​ ​for​ ​promotion​ ​to​ ​the​ ​next​ ​higher​ ​grade​ ​for​ ​the​ ​period​ ​01.01.2011​ ​to​ ​01.01.2017,​ ​and​ ​his​ ​name​ ​was​ ​recommended​ ​by​ ​the​ ​duly​ ​constituted​ ​Screening​ ​Committee​ ​for​ ​assessment​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Interview/Assessment​ ​Board.​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​was​ ​interviewed​ ​on​ ​03.03.2017​ ​and​ ​was​ ​subsequently​​selected​​and​​appointed​​as​​Scientist-E​​vide​​notification​​dated​ ​29.03.2017​ ​(Annexure​ ​A-11).​ ​The​ ​promotion​ ​was​ ​granted​ ​with​ ​retrospective effect from 29.10.2012.​ ​6.​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​has​ ​submitted​ ​that​ ​he​ ​continued​ ​to​ ​discharge​ ​his​ ​duties​ ​as​ ​Scientist-E​ ​satisfactorily​ ​without​ ​any​ ​adverse​ ​remarks​ ​or​ ​complaints.​ ​However,​ ​shortly​ ​before​ ​his​ ​superannuation​ ​scheduled​ ​on​ ​31.05.2022,​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​issued​ ​impugned​ ​order​ ​dated​ ​27.05.2022​ ​(Annexure​ ​A-1)​ ​cancelling​ ​the​ ​applicant's​ ​promotion​ ​to​ ​Scientist-E​ ​with​ ​retrospective​ ​effect​ ​from​ ​29.10.2012.​ ​A​ ​corresponding​ ​notification​ ​dated​ ​27.05.2022​ ​(Annexure​ ​A-2)​ ​was​ ​also​ ​issued,​ ​though​ ​the​ ​same​ ​has​​been​ ​stated as yet to be published in the Official Gazette.​ ​7.​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​alleges​ ​that​ ​the​ ​impugned​ ​action​ ​was​ ​taken​ ​without​ ​issuance​ ​of​​any​​show-cause​​notice​​or​​affording​​an​​opportunity​​of​​hearing​ ​to​ ​the​ ​applicant.​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​has​ ​submitted​ ​that​ ​the​ ​basis​ ​cited​ ​in​​the​ ​impugned​ ​order​ ​is​ ​Clause​​5(xiii)​​of​​the​​policy​​dated​​19.09.2016,​​alleging​ ​that​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​was​ ​not​ ​eligible​ ​for​ ​promotion​ ​beyond​ ​three​ ​assessments​ ​and​ ​would​ ​instead​ ​be​ ​governed​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Modified​ ​Assured​ ​Career​ ​Progression​ ​(MACP)​ ​Scheme.​ ​Aggrieved​ ​by​ ​the​ ​retrospective​ ​cancellation​ ​of​​his​​promotion​​and​​consequential​​reversion​​at​​the​​verge​​of​ ​retirement,​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​has​ ​approached​ ​this​ ​Tribunal​ ​challenging​ 2026.05.08 ​Annexure A-1 and Annexure A-2.​ SHIVAM 15:38:40 +05'30' ​8.​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​has​ ​challenged​ ​the​ ​impugned​ ​action​ ​of​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​on​ ​the​ ​following​ ​grounds.​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​contends​ ​that​ ​his​ ​first​ ​promotion​ ​to​ ​Scientist-B​ ​w.e.f.​ ​01.01.1992​ ​was​ ​under​ ​the​ ​Recruitment​ ​Rules​ ​and​ ​not​ ​under​ ​the​ ​FCS.​ ​therefore,​ ​the​ ​reliance​ ​of​​the​ ​4​ ​(O.A.No.060/528/2022)​ ​respondents​ ​on​ ​Clause​ ​5(xiii)​ ​of​ ​the​ ​policy​ ​dated​ ​19.09.2016​ ​to​ ​deny​ ​eligibility​ ​is​ ​legally​ ​untenable.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​pleaded​ ​that​​after​​the​​introduction​​of​ ​the​ ​FCS​ ​in​ ​1998​ ​and​ ​subsequent​ ​policy​ ​of​ ​2016,​ ​the​ ​applicant​​has​​been​ ​assessed​ ​only​​three​​times​​for​​promotion​​to​​Scientist-C,​​D,​​and​​E.​​Hence,​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​contends​ ​that​ ​the​ ​restriction​ ​of​ ​three​ ​assessments​ ​has​​not​ ​been violated, rendering the impugned order unsustainable.​ ​9.​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​asserts​ ​that​ ​he​ ​was​ ​found​ ​prima​ ​facie​ ​eligible​ ​under​ ​OM​ ​dated​ ​28.02.2017​ ​and​ ​was​ ​duly​ ​assessed​ ​and​ ​recommended​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Screening​ ​Committee​ ​and​ ​Assessment​ ​Board,​ ​and​​as​​such,​​the​​applicant​ ​contends​ ​that​ ​his​ ​promotion​ ​to​ ​Scientist-E​ ​vide​ ​notification​ ​dated​ ​29.03.2017​ ​(Annexure​ ​A-11)​ ​after​ ​due​ ​process​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​subsequently​ ​invalidated.​ ​Further,​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​contends​ ​that​ ​the​ ​impugned​ ​orders​ ​(Annexures​ ​A-1​ ​and​ ​A-2)​ ​have​ ​been​ ​passed​ ​without​ ​issuing​ ​any​ ​show-cause​ ​notice​ ​or​ ​affording​ ​an​ ​opportunity​ ​of​ ​hearing​ ​despite​ ​having​ ​serious​ ​civil​ ​consequences​ ​including​ ​reversion,​ ​reduction​ ​of​ ​pay,​ ​and​ ​impact on retiral benefits.​ ​10.​ ​The​​applicant​​asserts​​that​​reversion​​from​​a​​promotional​​post​​cannot​ ​be​ ​effected​ ​retrospectively,​ ​particularly​ ​when​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​has​ ​already​ ​discharged​ ​duties​ ​on​ ​the​ ​higher​ ​post​ ​for​ ​a​ ​substantial​ ​period.​ ​The​ ​applicant​​further​​asserts​​that​​the​​respondents​​have​​selectively​​relied​​upon​ ​Clause​​5(xiii)​​while​​ignoring​​Clause​​9​​of​​the​​same​​policy​​(Annexure​​A-10),​ ​which​ ​stipulates​ ​that​ ​past​ ​review​ ​cases​ ​shall​ ​not​ ​be​ ​reopened.​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​contends​ ​that​ ​his​ ​promotion​ ​having​ ​been​ ​granted​ ​after​ ​due​ ​review could not have been revisited.​ ​11.​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​contends​ ​that​ ​cancellation​ ​of​ ​promotion​ ​just​ ​days​ ​before​ ​superannuation​ ​after​ ​years​ ​of​ ​service​ ​on​ ​the​ ​promoted​ ​post​ ​is​ ​arbitrary​ ​and​ ​causes​ ​grave​ ​prejudice.​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​asserts​ ​that​ ​the​ ​impugned​​action​​is​​likely​​to​​result​​in​​reduction​​of​​pay,​​recovery​​of​​alleged​ 2026.05.08 ​excess​ ​salary,​ ​and​ ​reduction​ ​of​ ​pensionary​ ​benefits​ ​thereby​ ​causing​ SHIVAM 15:38:40 +05'30' ​serious​​prejudice​​to​​the​​applicant.​​The​​applicant​​has​​pleaded​​that​​the​​his​ ​promotion​ ​was​ ​granted​ ​after​ ​due​ ​assessment​ ​strictly​ ​in​ ​accordance​ ​with​ ​applicable​ ​policies,​ ​and​ ​therefore,​ ​there​ ​is​ ​no​ ​illegality​ ​warranting​ ​interference by the respondents.​ ​5​ ​(O.A.No.060/528/2022)​ ​12.​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​have​ ​contested​ ​the​ ​claims​ ​of​ ​the​ ​applicant.​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​contend​ ​that​ ​the​ ​impugned​ ​order​ ​dated​ ​27.05.2022​ ​(Annexure​ ​A-1)​ ​and​ ​the​ ​corresponding​ ​notification​ ​dated​ ​27.05.2022​ ​(Annexure​ ​A-2)​ ​cancelling​ ​the​ ​applicant's​ ​promotion​ ​to​ ​Scientist-E​ ​with​ ​retrospective​​effect​​were​​issued​​to​​correct​​an​​administrative​​error,​​as​​the​ ​applicant's​ ​promotion​ ​was​ ​erroneous​ ​ab​ ​initio.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​submitted​ ​by​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​that​ ​the​ ​Flexible​ ​Complementing​ ​Scheme​ ​(FCS)​ ​introduced​ ​vide​ ​OM​ ​dated​ ​09.11.1998​ ​(Annexure​ ​A-5)​ ​governs​ ​merit-based​ ​promotions​ ​of​ ​S&T​ ​officers,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​Modified​ ​Flexible​ ​Complementing​ ​Scheme​​(MFCS),​​introduced​​vide​​OM​​dated​​10.09.2010,​​further​​stipulates​ ​that​​promotion​​is​​based​​on​​merit​​and​​assessment​​and​​that​​a​​scientist​​can​ ​be​ ​considered​ ​for​ ​promotion​ ​only​ ​three​​times,​​after​​which​​MACP​​applies.​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​have​ ​further​ ​submitted​ ​that​ ​the​ ​Personnel​ ​Policy​ ​dated​ ​19.09.2016​ ​(Annexure​ ​A-10)​ ​issued​ ​by​ ​MeitY​ ​applies​ ​retrospectively​ ​w.e.f.​ ​01.01.2011​ ​and​ ​retains​ ​the​ ​condition​ ​under​ ​Clause​ ​5(xiii)​ ​that​ ​assessment​ ​for​ ​promotion​ ​to​ ​the​ ​next​ ​grade​ ​is​ ​restricted​ ​to​ ​three​ ​attempts.​ ​13.​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​assert​ ​that​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​was​ ​considered​ ​for​ ​promotion​​to​​Scientist-E​​in​​three​​earlier​​attempts,​​namely​​July​​2008,​​July​ ​2009,​ ​and​ ​July​ ​2010,​ ​but​ ​was​ ​not​ ​recommended​ ​in​ ​any​ ​of​ ​these​ ​assessments.​ ​These​ ​records​ ​are​ ​placed​ ​on​ ​record​ ​as​ ​Annexure​ ​R-1​ ​(colly.).​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​contend​​that​​consequently,​​under​​Clause​​5(xiii)​ ​of​ ​policy​ ​dated​ ​19.09.2016​ ​(Annexure​ ​A-10),​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​became​ ​ineligible​ ​for​ ​any​ ​further​ ​assessment,​ ​however,​ ​during​ ​the​ ​review​ ​promotion​ ​exercise​ ​for​ ​the​ ​period​ ​2011-2016,​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​was​ ​inadvertently​ ​screened​ ​in​ ​and​ ​assessed​ ​for​ ​a​ ​fourth​ ​time,​ ​leading​ ​to​ ​his​ ​promotion​ ​as​ ​Scientist-E​ ​vide​ ​order​ ​dated​ ​29.03.2017​ ​(Annexure​ ​A-11).​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​therefore​ ​argue​ ​that​ ​the​ ​promotion​ ​granted​ ​to​ ​the​ 2026.05.08 ​applicant​ ​w.e.f.​ ​29.10.2012​ ​was​ ​erroneous,​ ​being​ ​in​ ​violation​ ​of​ ​the​ SHIVAM 15:38:40 +05'30' ​three-attempt rule.​ ​14.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​contended​​by​​the​​respondents​​that​​the​​error​​in​​the​​applicant's​ ​promotion​​came​​to​​light​​during​​proceedings​​in​​M.A.​​No.​​2327/2021​​in​​OA​ ​No.​​1704/2018​​(Sanjay​​Kumar​​Chauhan​​&​​Ors.​​vs.​​Union​​of​​India​​&​​Ors.),​ ​6​ ​(O.A.No.060/528/2022)​ ​wherein​​the​​applicant's​​case​​was​​cited​​as​​an​​example​​of​​a​​fourth​​attempt​ ​promotion.​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​have​ ​submitted​ ​that​ ​this​​prompted​​scrutiny​ ​of​​records,​​revealing​​that​​the​​applicant's​​promotion​​was​​inconsistent​​with​ ​the applicable policy.​ ​15.​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​rely​ ​upon​ ​DoPT​ ​OM​ ​dated​ ​10.04.1989,​ ​which​ ​permits​ ​review​ ​DPC​​in​​cases​​where​​ineligible​​candidates​​were​​considered​ ​by​ ​mistake​ ​or​ ​material​ ​facts​​were​​not​​considered.​​It​​is​​contended​​by​​the​ ​respondents​ ​that​ ​since​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​was​ ​ineligible​ ​but​ ​mistakenly​ ​considered,​ ​a​ ​Review​ ​DPC​ ​was​ ​validly​ ​convened​ ​and​ ​based​ ​on​ ​its​ ​recommendation,​ ​the​ ​competent​ ​authority​ ​approved​ ​cancellation​ ​of​ ​the​ ​erroneous​ ​promotion.​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​assert​ ​that​ ​the​ ​cancellation​ ​of​ ​promotion​ ​is​ ​not​ ​punitive​ ​but​ ​merely​ ​corrective​ ​in​ ​nature​ ​and​ ​therefore​ ​principles​ ​of​ ​natural​ ​justice​ ​are​ ​not​ ​attracted​ ​and​ ​no​ ​show-cause​ ​notice​ ​was​ ​required.​ ​Reliance​ ​is​ ​placed​ ​on​ ​judicial​ ​precedent​ ​(Annexure​ ​R-2),​ ​holding​ ​that​ ​if​ ​an​ ​appointment/promotion​ ​is​ ​made​ ​contrary​ ​to​ ​rules,​ ​its​ ​correction does not require prior notice.​ ​16.​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​have​ ​denied​ ​the​ ​applicant's​ ​contention​ ​that​ ​his​ ​initial​ ​promotion​ ​to​ ​Scientist-B​ ​being​ ​outside​ ​FCS​ ​renders​ ​Clause​ ​5(xiii)​ ​inapplicable.​​It​​is​​contended​​by​​the​​respondents​​that​​Clause​​5(xiii)​​applies​ ​to​ ​assessments​ ​for​ ​a​ ​particular​ ​grade​ ​and​ ​not​ ​initial​ ​promotions.​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​assert​ ​that​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​had​ ​already​ ​availed​ ​three​ ​assessment​ ​opportunities​ ​for​ ​Scientist-E,​ ​and​ ​hence,​ ​a​ ​fourth​ ​consideration​​was​​impermissible.​​The​​respondents​​further​​emphasize​​that​ ​promotions​ ​under​ ​FCS/MFCS​ ​and​ ​the​ ​2016​ ​policy​ ​(Annexure​ ​A-10)​ ​are​ ​strictly​​merit-based,​​and​​that​​promotion​​is​​not​​a​​matter​​of​​right,​​but​​only​ ​a​ ​right​ ​to​ ​be​ ​considered​ ​as​ ​per​ ​policy.​ ​As​ ​such,​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​have​ ​reiterated​ ​that​ ​the​ ​impugned​ ​action​ ​is​ ​not​ ​penal​ ​but​​a​​rectification​​of​​an​ ​erroneous​ ​promotion,​ ​therefore​ ​protections​ ​relating​ ​to​​disciplinary​​action​ 2026.05.08 ​or​ ​Article​ ​311​ ​are​ ​not​ ​attracted.​ ​On​ ​the​ ​basis​ ​of​ ​the​​above​​submissions,​ SHIVAM 15:38:40 +05'30' ​the respondents contend that the applicant is not entitled to any relief.​ ​17.​ ​In​ ​rejoinder,​ ​the​ ​applicant​​has​​categorically​​denied​​the​​assertion​​of​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​that​ ​his​ ​promotion​ ​to​ ​Scientist-E​ ​was​ ​erroneous.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​contended​ ​by​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​that​ ​the​ ​promotion​ ​granted​ ​vide​ ​notification​ ​7​ ​(O.A.No.060/528/2022)​ ​dated​ ​29.03.2017​ ​(Annexure​ ​A-11)​ ​has​ ​remained​ ​in​​operation​​for​​nearly​ ​10​ ​years,​ ​during​ ​which​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​continuously​ ​discharged​ ​duties​ ​on​ ​the​ ​promoted​ ​post.​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​further​ ​contends​ ​that​ ​there​ ​was​ ​no​ ​illegality​ ​in​ ​the​ ​promotion,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​same​ ​cannot​ ​now​ ​be​ ​termed​ ​erroneous.​ ​18.​ ​In​ ​response​ ​to​ ​reliance​ ​of​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​on​ ​Clause​ ​5(xiii)​​of​​the​ ​policy​ ​dated​ ​19.09.2016​ ​(Annexure​ ​A-10),​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​submits​ ​that​ ​merely​​because​​the​​applicant​​was​​assessed​​in​​earlier​​years​​(2008-2010),​ ​he​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​debarred​ ​from​ ​consideration​ ​under​ ​the​ ​subsequent​ ​policy​ ​framework.​​The​​applicant​​submits​​that​​his​​case​​is​​covered​​under​​the​​later​ ​scheme/policy​ ​i.e.​ ​post-2012/2016​ ​framework,​ ​and​ ​therefore​ ​earlier​ ​attempts​​cannot​​be​​mechanically​​counted​​to​​deny​​eligibility.​​The​​applicant​ ​specifically​​denies​​the​​contention​​of​​the​​respondents​​that​​he​​was​​ineligible​ ​for consideration under the 2016 policy.​ ​19.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​asserted​ ​by​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​that​​the​​promotion​​order​​(Annexure​ ​A-11)​ ​was​ ​duly​ ​issued​ ​and​ ​approved​ ​by​ ​the​ ​competent​ ​authority,​ ​and​ ​there​​is​​no​​material​​to​​show​​that​​such​​approval​​was​​ever​​withdrawn.​​The​ ​applicant​ ​contends​ ​that​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​cannot​ ​now​ ​contend​ ​that​ ​the​ ​promotion​ ​was​ ​wrongly​ ​granted.​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​denies​ ​that​ ​he​ ​was​ ​screened​​inadvertently​​or​​wrongly​​assessed​​during​​the​​review​​exercise​​or​ ​that​ ​the​ ​Screening​ ​Committee​ ​or​ ​Assessment​ ​Board​ ​committed​ ​any​ ​mistake​ ​in​​recommending​​him.​​Further,​​the​​applicant​​refutes​​the​​reliance​ ​placed​ ​by​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​on​ ​review​ ​DPC​ ​principles,​ ​asserting​ ​that​ ​no​ ​mistake​​existed​​in​​the​​first​​place​​to​​warrant​​review,​​and​​consequently,​​the​ ​cancellation​ ​of​ ​promotion​ ​on​ ​the​ ​basis​ ​of​ ​alleged​ ​rectification​ ​of​ ​error​ ​is​ ​unjustified.​ ​20.​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​strongly​ ​reiterates​ ​that​ ​even​ ​if​ ​there​ ​was​ ​any​ ​irregularity,​ ​which​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​categorically​ ​denies,​ ​even​ ​then​ ​the​ 2026.05.08 ​promotion​ ​could​ ​not​ ​have​ ​been​ ​cancelled​ ​without​ ​issuing​ ​notice​ ​or​ SHIVAM 15:38:40 +05'30' ​granting​ ​an​ ​opportunity​ ​of​ ​hearing.​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​asserts​ ​that​ ​the​ ​impugned​​action,​​taken​​just​​four​​days​​prior​​to​​retirement​​on​​31.05.2022,​ ​is​​arbitrary​​and​​illegal.​​The​​applicant​​contends​​that​​the​​action​​has​​serious​ ​civil​ ​consequences,​ ​including​ ​reversion​ ​and​ ​impact​ ​on​ ​retiral​ ​benefits,​ ​8​ ​(O.A.No.060/528/2022)​ ​therefore,​ ​the​ ​plea​ ​of​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​that​ ​it​ ​is​ ​a​ ​mere​ ​administrative​ ​correction​ ​is​ ​untenable.​ ​As​ ​such,​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​maintains​ ​that​ ​the​ ​impugned​ ​orders​ ​(Annexures​ ​A-1​ ​and​ ​A-2​​dated​​27.05.2022)​​are​​illegal,​ ​arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice.​ ​21.​ ​Vide​ ​daily​ ​order​ ​dated​ ​06.11.2025,​ ​This​ ​Tribunal​ ​directed​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​to​ ​clarify​ ​as​ ​to​ ​which​ ​category​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​falls​ ​in​ ​as​ ​per​ ​para​ ​2​ ​of​ ​Annexure​ ​A-10​ ​i.e.​ ​Personnel​ ​Policy​ ​dated​ ​19.09.2016,​ ​which​ ​reads as under:​ ​"2.​​The​​salient​​feature​​of​​this​​policy​​was​​that​​it​​enabled​​every​​scientist​​to​ ​progress​​at​​the​​rate​​determined​​by​​their​​merit​​rather​​than​​the​​constraints​ ​of​ ​availability​ ​of​ ​posts.​ ​This​ ​policy​ ​was​ ​modeled​ ​on​ ​the​ ​basis​ ​of​​practice​ ​prevalent​ ​in​​the​​Department​​of​​Space​​and​​Department​​of​​Atomic​​Energy.​ ​On​ ​the​ ​recommendation​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Vih​ ​CPC,​ ​the​ ​Government​ ​of​ ​India​​in​​the​ ​DOPT​ ​notified​ ​an​ ​FCS​ ​for​ ​Group​ ​'A'​ ​S&T​ ​officers​ ​for​ ​seven​ ​departments,​ ​including​ ​this​ ​department.​ ​On​ ​the​ ​recommendation​ ​of​ ​the​ ​VIth​ ​CPC,​ ​a​ ​modified​ ​FCS​ ​was​ ​notified​ ​by​ ​DoPT.​ ​The​ ​modified​ ​FCS​ ​has​ ​been​ ​made​ ​applicable​​only​​to​​those​​possessing​​a​​minimum​​qualification​​of​​a​​degree​​in​ ​engineering​ ​or​ ​a​ ​masters​ ​degree​ ​in​ ​natural​ ​science.​ ​As​ ​a​ ​result​ ​a​ ​large​ ​number​ ​of​ ​S&T​ ​Officers​ ​who​ ​were​ ​recruited​ ​by​ ​the​ ​department​ ​and​ ​its​ ​Institutions​​with​​qualifications​​other​​than​​those​​prescribed​​in​​the​​Modified​ ​FCS​​have​​been​​left​​outside​​the​​purview​​of​​this​​scheme.​​In​​view​​of​​this,​​a​ ​necessity​ ​has​ ​arisen​ ​in​ ​the​ ​department​ ​to​ ​draft​ ​its​ ​own​ ​policy​​which​​will​ ​take​ ​into​ ​consideration​ ​the​ ​special​ ​circumstances​ ​prevailing​ ​not​ ​only​ ​in​ ​the​​Department​​but​​also​​in​​its​​subordinate​​and​​attached​​offices​​as​​also​​in​ ​the autonomous organizations under the department."​ ​22.​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​have​ ​filed​ ​a​ ​supplementary​ ​affidavit​​in​​pursuance​ ​of​ ​order​ ​dated​ ​06.11.2025​ ​on​ ​10.12.2025.​​It​​has​​been​​submitted​​by​​the​ ​respondents​ ​that​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​falls​ ​within​ ​the​ ​category​ ​of​ ​officers​ ​contemplated​ ​under​ ​Para​ ​2​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Personnel​ ​Policy​ ​dated​ ​19.09.2016​ ​(Annexure​ ​A-10),​ ​i.e.,​ ​those​ ​officers​ ​who​ ​possessed​ ​the​ ​requisite​ ​educational​ ​qualifications​ ​applicable​ ​to​ ​the​ ​cadre​ ​in​ ​which​ ​they​ ​were​ 2026.05.08 ​recruited​ ​prior​ ​to​ ​the​ ​issuance​ ​of​ ​the​ ​2010​ ​policy.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​the​ SHIVAM 15:38:40 +05'30' ​applicant​ ​possesses​ ​a​​B.Tech​​degree​​in​​Computer​​Science​​&​​Engineering,​ ​which​ ​satisfies​ ​the​ ​educational​ ​qualification​ ​requirements​ ​under​ ​the​ ​9​ ​(O.A.No.060/528/2022)​ ​applicable​ ​policies,​ ​including​ ​MFCS​ ​2010​ ​and​ ​the​ ​2016​ ​policy​ ​(Annexure​ ​A-10).​ ​23.​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​have​ ​stated​ ​to​ ​have​ ​undertaken​ ​a​ ​comparative​ ​analysis​​of​​the​​Personnel​​Policy​​of​​1981,​​FCS​​1998​​(Annexure​​A-5),​​MFCS​ ​2010,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​Personnel​ ​Policy​ ​dated​ ​19.09.2016​ ​(Annexure​ ​A-10),​ ​and​ ​have​ ​placed​ ​the​​same​​on​​record​​as​​Annexure​​R-3.​​This​​analysis​​is​​stated​ ​to​ ​demonstrate​ ​the​ ​evolution​ ​of​ ​eligibility​ ​criteria​ ​and​ ​qualification​ ​requirements​ ​and​ ​the​ ​positioning​ ​of​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​within​ ​the​ ​category​ ​of​ ​officers​ ​covered​ ​under​ ​earlier​ ​policies​ ​and​ ​continuing​ ​under​ ​the​ ​2016​ ​policy​​framework.​​It​​is​​further​​clarified​​that​​Para​​2​​of​​the​​Personnel​​Policy​ ​dated​ ​19.09.2016​ ​(Annexure​ ​A-10)​ ​pertains​ ​to​ ​identification​ ​of​ ​officers​ ​based​ ​on​ ​educational​ ​qualifications​ ​and​ ​recruitment​ ​background,​ ​and​ ​does​ ​not​ ​create​ ​separate​ ​promotional​ ​pathways​ ​but​ ​operates​ ​within​ ​the​ ​broader framework of the policy.​ ​24.​ ​We​ ​have​ ​heard​ ​the​ ​arguments​ ​addressed​ ​by​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​for​ ​both sides and carefully perused the material on record.​ ​25.​ ​The​ ​controversy​ ​at​ ​hand​ ​revolves​ ​around​ ​the​ ​interpretation​ ​and​ ​application​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Personnel​ ​Policy​ ​dated​ ​19.09.2016​ ​(Annexure​ ​A-10),​ ​particularly​ ​Para​ ​2​ ​and​ ​Clause​ ​5(xiii),​ ​as​ ​well​ ​as​ ​the​ ​legality​ ​of​ ​retrospective cancellation of promotion of the applicant.​ ​26.​ ​Pursuant​ ​to​ ​the​ ​direction​ ​of​ ​this​ ​Tribunal​ ​vide​ ​order​ ​dated​ ​06.11.2025,​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​have​ ​clarified​ ​in​ ​their​ ​supplementary​ ​affidavit​ ​that​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​falls​ ​within​ ​the​ ​category​ ​contemplated​ ​under​ ​Para​ ​2​ ​of​ ​Annexure​ ​A-10,​ ​i.e.,​ ​officers​ ​who​ ​possessed​ ​the​ ​requisite​ ​educational​ ​qualifications​ ​applicable​ ​to​ ​the​ ​cadre​ ​at​ ​the​ ​time​ ​of​ ​recruitment.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​not​ ​disputed​ ​that​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​holds​ ​a​ ​B.Tech​ ​degree​ 2026.05.08 SHIVAM 15:38:40 +05'30' ​and satisfies the qualification criteria under the applicable schemes.​ ​27.​ ​Para​ ​2​ ​of​ ​Policy​ ​dated​ ​19.09.2016​ ​(Annexure​ ​A-10)​​clearly​​reflects​ ​that​​the​​very​​purpose​​of​​the​​2016​​policy​​was​​to​​accommodate​​and​​protect​ ​officers​ ​who​ ​were​ ​recruited​ ​under​ ​earlier​ ​regimes​ ​but​ ​were​ ​adversely​ ​10​ ​(O.A.No.060/528/2022)​ ​affected​​by​​the​​restrictive​​criteria​​introduced​​under​​MFCS​​2010.​​Thus,​​the​ ​policy​​was​​intended​​to​​be​​beneficial​​and​​inclusive,​​addressing​​the​​peculiar​ ​position​​of​​such​​officers.​​Once​​the​​respondents​​themselves​​admit​​that​​the​ ​applicant​​falls​​within​​the​​said​​category,​​the​​contention​​of​​the​​respondents​ ​denying​​him​​promotion​​by​​rigidly​​invoking​​Clause​​5(xiii)​​loses​​legal​​force.​ ​The​ ​policy​ ​must​ ​be​​read​​harmoniously,​​and​​not​​in​​a​​manner​​that​​defeats​ ​its​ ​underlying​ ​objective.​ ​A​ ​restrictive​ ​interpretation​ ​that​​nullifies​​benefits​ ​granted​​after​​due​​assessment​​would​​run​​contrary​​to​​the​​spirit​​of​​Para​​2​​of​ ​the policy.​ ​28.​ ​From​ ​the​ ​record,​ ​it​ ​is​ ​evident​ ​that​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​was​ ​duly​ ​considered,​ ​screened,​ ​assessed,​ ​and​ ​recommended​ ​by​ ​competent​ ​authority​ ​while​ ​being​ ​considered​​for​​the​​promotion​​in​​dispute.​​Promotion​ ​was​ ​subsequently​ ​granted​ ​to​ ​him​ ​vide​ ​notification​ ​dated​ ​29.03.2017​ ​(Annexure​ ​A-11)​ ​after​ ​following​ ​the​ ​prescribed​ ​procedure.​ ​Further,​ ​it​ ​is​ ​undisputed​​that​​the​​applicant​​continued​​to​​serve​​on​​the​​promoted​​post​​for​ ​a​​substantial​​period​​without​​any​​adverse​​material.​​In​​such​​circumstances,​ ​the​​argument​​of​​the​​respondents​​that​​the​​promotion​​was​​erroneous​​is​​not​ ​sufficiently​ ​established​ ​from​ ​the​ ​record​ ​so​ ​as​ ​to​ ​justify​ ​retrospective​ ​cancellation​ ​of​ ​such​ ​promotion​ ​after​​several​​years.​​Additionally,​​Clause​​9​ ​of the policy reads as under:​ ​"​9.​ ​The​​policy​​is​​to​​be​​made​​effective​​retrospectively​​w.e.f.​​01.01.2011.​ ​Reviews​ ​already​ ​conducted​ ​since​ ​2011​ ​under​ ​the​ ​FCS/MFCS​ ​policies​ ​of​ ​DOPT​ ​would​ ​be​ ​treated​ ​as​ ​having​ ​been​ ​done​ ​under​ ​the​ ​new​ ​policy​ ​and​ ​past review cases will not be re-opened."​ ​When​​the​​policy​​of​​2016​​itself​​provides​​that​​past​​review​​cases​​shall​​not​​be​ ​reopened,​ ​the​ ​action​ ​of​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​in​ ​revisiting​ ​and​ ​nullifying​ ​the​ ​promotion of the applicant is contrary to this provision of the policy itself.​ 2026.05.08 SHIVAM 15:38:40 ​29.​ ​On​ ​the​ ​aspect​ ​of​ ​natural​ ​justice,​ ​the​ ​impugned​ ​orders​ ​admittedly​ +05'30' ​were​ ​passed​ ​without​ ​issuance​​of​​any​​show-cause​​notice​​and​​notably​​just​ ​four​ ​days​ ​prior​ ​to​ ​the​ ​applicant's​ ​retirement.​ ​The​ ​consequences​ ​of​ ​such​ ​action​ ​are​ ​civil​ ​in​ ​nature,​ ​affecting​ ​status,​ ​pay,​ ​and​ ​retiral​ ​benefits.​ ​The​ ​11​ ​(O.A.No.060/528/2022)​ ​contention​​of​​the​​respondents​​that​​the​​action​​is​​merely​​corrective​​cannot​ ​be​ ​accepted​ ​in​ ​the​ ​given​ ​factual​ ​matrix,​ ​particularly​ ​when​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​had​​already​​worked​​on​​the​​promoted​​post​​for​​years.​​Even​​assuming​​that​ ​the​​respondents​​were​​justified​​in​​issuing​​the​​reversion​​order,​​the​​issue​​of​ ​retiral​ ​benefits​ ​is​ ​no​ ​longer​ ​res​ ​integra.​ ​The​ ​Hon'ble​ ​Supreme​ ​Court​ ​in​ ​Surya​ ​Prakash​ ​Shrivastava​ ​vs​ ​State​ ​of​ ​Madhya​ ​Pradesh​ ​in​ ​CA​ ​No.​ ​5931-5932​ ​of​ ​2024​ ​decided​ ​on​ ​19.03.2025​ ​has​ ​held​ ​that​ ​where​ ​an​ ​employee​​continues​​to​​work​​on​​the​​promoted​​post​​till​​superannuation,​​the​ ​employee​ ​shall​ ​be​ ​treated​ ​as​ ​having​​retired​​from​​the​​promoted​​post​​and​ ​shall​​be​​entitled​​to​​pensionary​​and​​terminal​​benefits​​based​​on​​the​​last​​pay​ ​drawn on that post, notwithstanding a reversion order.​ ​30.​ ​In​ ​the​ ​present​ ​case,​​the​​applicant​​continued​​to​​discharge​​duties​​as​ ​Scientist-E​ ​till​ ​the​ ​verge​ ​of​ ​retirement,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​impugned​ ​order​ ​was​ ​issued​ ​only​ ​days​ ​before​ ​superannuation.​ ​Applying​ ​the​ ​ratio​ ​of​ ​the​ ​aforesaid​ ​judgment,​ ​it​ ​would​ ​be​ ​unjust​ ​and​ ​legally​ ​impermissible​ ​to​ ​deprive​​the​​applicant​​of​​retiral​​benefits​​attached​​to​​the​​post​​of​​Scientist-E.​ ​Therefore,​ ​from​ ​the​ ​combined​ ​consideration​ ​of​ ​the​ ​object​ ​and​ ​scope​ ​of​ ​Para​ ​2​ ​of​ ​Policy​ ​dated​ ​19.09.2016​ ​(Annexure​ ​A-10)​ ​and​ ​coverage​​of​​the​ ​applicant​ ​thereunder,​ ​the​ ​bar​ ​against​ ​reopening​ ​past​ ​cases​ ​in​ ​terms​ ​of​ ​Clause​ ​9​ ​of​ ​the​ ​said​ ​policy,​ ​the​ ​violation​ ​of​ ​the​ ​principles​ ​of​ ​natural​ ​justice,​ ​as​ ​also​ ​the​ ​ratio​ ​of​ ​law​ ​laid​ ​down​ ​by​ ​Hon'ble​ ​Supreme​ ​Court​ ​discussed​​herein​​above,​​we​​are​​of​​the​​considered​​view​​that​​the​​impugned​ ​action​ ​of​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​sustained​ ​and​ ​the​ ​same​ ​is​ ​liable​​to​ ​be struck down.​ ​31.​ ​In​ ​view​ ​of​ ​the​ ​foregoing​ ​discussion,​ ​the​ ​Original​ ​Application​ ​deserves​ ​to​ ​be​ ​allowed.​ ​Resultantly,​ ​the​ ​impugned​ ​order​ ​dated​ ​27.05.2022​​(Annexure​​A-1)​​and​​notification​​dated​​27.05.2022​​(Annexure​ ​A-2)​ ​are​​quashed​​and​​set​​aside.​​The​​applicant​​shall​​be​​treated​​as​​having​ 2026.05.08 ​validly​ ​continued​ ​on​ ​the​ ​post​ ​of​ ​Scientist-E​ ​till​ ​the​ ​date​ ​of​ ​his​ SHIVAM 15:38:40 +05'30' ​superannuation.​​The​​respondents​​are​​directed​​to​​fix​​the​​retiral​​benefits​​of​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​on​ ​the​ ​basis​ ​of​ ​the​ ​pay​ ​last​ ​drawn​ ​by​ ​him​ ​on​ ​the​ ​post​ ​of​ ​Scientist-E,​ ​in​ ​terms​ ​of​ ​the​ ​law​ ​laid​​down​​by​​the​​Hon'ble​​Supreme​​Court​ ​in​ ​Surya​ ​Prakash​ ​Shrivastava​ ​vs​ ​State​ ​of​ ​Madhya​ ​Pradesh​ ​(supra).​ ​The​ ​12​ ​(O.A.No.060/528/2022)​ ​aforesaid​ ​exercise​ ​shall​ ​be​ ​completed​ ​within​ ​a​ ​period​ ​of​ ​three​ ​months​ ​from​ ​the​ ​date​ ​of​ ​receipt​ ​of​ ​a​ ​certified​ ​copy​ ​of​​this​​order.​​Arrears,​​if​​any,​ ​shall be released accordingly.​ ​32.​ ​The​ ​Original​ ​Application​ ​stands​ ​disposed​ ​of​ ​in​ ​the​ ​above​ ​terms.​ ​Associated​​Miscellaneous​​Applications​​shall​​stand​​disposed​​of​​accordingly.​ ​No order as to costs.​ ​(ANJALI BHAWRA)​ ​(RAMESH SINGH THAKUR)​ ​MEMBER (A)​ ​MEMBER (J)​ ​/s/​ 2026.05.08 SHIVAM 15:38:40 +05'30'