Allahabad High Court
Deomani Pandey vs Member, Central Administrative ... on 6 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:75766-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 3262 of 2026
Deomani Pandey
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Member, Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad and 3 others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Anshu Chaudhary
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
A.S.G.I., Kailash Prakash Pathak, Sudhanshu Srivastava
Chief Justice's Court
HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
1. This petition is directed against order dated 30 October 2025 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in Original Application No. 1187 of 2017 ('O.A.'), whereby the O.A. filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
2. The O.A. was filed seeking quashing of the order dated 16.05.2015 passed by the respondents, whereby the claim made by the petitioner seeking review of the promotion accorded to him in January 2011 was rejected and a direction to the respondents to grant Category-II T-3 and T-4 as it fell due in January 2006 and January 2011 respectively.
3. The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Employee on 22 September 1979. He was subsequently promoted in January 1996 to the post of Field Farm Assistant (T-1) and after completion of five years on the said post, was promoted in January 2001 to Category T-2 on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee ('DPC').
4. The applicable rules governing the services of the petitioner provided that an employee who has completed five years of satisfactory service in Category T-2 becomes eligible for promotion to Category-II (T-3) through the DPC. The petitioner claimed that he became eligible for such promotion in January 2006, however, he was granted promotion in January 2011 after completion of 10 years of service in Category T-2.
5. The representation made by the petitioner was rejected on 21.07.2006 on the ground that he did not possess a Bachelor's Degree in Science. The petitioner made further representation relying on Government Order dated 24.02.2006, clarified by ICAR on 19.05.2008, however, the said representation was also rejected on 29.10.2008.
6. It appears that before superannuating on 30 September 2015, the petitioner again made a representation on 27.04.2015 which came to be rejected on 16.05.2015. Post-retirement, the petitioner filed the O.A. seeking reliefs as indicated herein before.
7. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that once an employee has superannuated, the question of granting retrospective promotion, refixing seniority or directing consideration for further promotion advancement becomes academic in nature and devoid of practical consequence.
8. The Tribunal, referring to judgment in Government of West Bengal and others Vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi and others: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3512, came to the conclusion that even assuming that the delay was not justified, the claim for retrospective effect cannot now be entertained, as the right to be considered for promotion does not survive after retirement and consequently, dismissed the O.A.
9. Counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the O.A. based on judgment in the case of Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra), as the said judgment had no application to the facts of the present case. Submissions were made that the petitioner was not seeking promotion post-retirement. In fact, during course of his employment, since 2006, he was agitating his cause for grant of promotion, however, his repeated representations were rejected and finally such representation was rejected prior to his superannuation and merely because the O.A. was filed after retirement, it cannot be said that the relief, as claimed, would not be available. It was submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the law laid down in the case of Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra).
10. Further submissions were made that the petitioner was having a higher qualification than the qualification required for an accelerated promotion, inasmuch as, while the eligibility condition provided for a Graduation Degree, the petitioner had Postgraduate Degree and therefore, the respondents as well as the Tribunal fell in error in rejecting the claim and dismissing the O.A.
11. Counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned. Submissions were made that the O.A. was ex facie barred by limitation. The Tribunal did not consider the said issue. It was emphasised that admittedly, the cause of action, if any, arose to the petitioner in the year 2006, his representation was rejected in 2006 itself. Subsequent representation was rejected in the year 2008 and he was accorded promotion in the year 2011. Despite the above specific events providing cause of action to the petitioner, no challenge was laid and the O.A. was filed in the year 2017 giving a lame excuse for the delay in respect of challenge to the order dated 16.05.2015 and therefore, the O.A. was liable to be dismissed on the said ground alone.
12. Further submissions were made that the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the O.A., inasmuch as the claim pertained to the year 2006 and the challenge was laid, for the first time, post-retirement and as such, in light of judgment in the case of Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra), no relief was available.
13. On merits, it was submitted that, admittedly, the petitioner did not study the requisite subjects in Graduation, which was the eligibility condition and as such, rejection of his claim for accelerated promotion has been rightly denied and therefore, the petition deserves dismissal.
14. We have considered the submissions made and have perused the material available on record.
15. The Tribunal has failed to consider the plea raised by the petitioner on merits and has also not considered the aspect of delay in filing the O.A. The rejection is only based on the law laid down in the case of Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra).
16. In the case of Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the case wherein, though the recommendation for promotion was made on 29 December 2016, the Department received the final approval for promotion on 04 January 2017, prior to which the incumbent had superannuated on 31 December 2016. In those circumstances, referring to judgments in Bihar State Electricity Board and others Vs. Dharamdeo Das: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1768 which inter alia laid down that a promotion is effective from the date it is granted and not from the date when a vacancy occurs on the subject post and the principle that no retrospective promotion can be granted nor can any seniority be given on retrospective basis from a date when an employee was not even borne in the cadre, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "20. In the instant case, it is evident that while respondent No. 1 was recommended for promotion before his retirement, he could not assume the duties of the Chief Scientific Officer. Rule 54(1)(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules, clearly stipulates that an employee must assume the responsibilities of a higher post to draw the corresponding pay, thus, preventing posthumous or retrospective promotions in the absence of an enabling provision. 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 benefits associated to the promotional post of Chief Scientific Officer, as he did not serve in that capacity."
17. The judgment is only an authority for the proposition that the claim for the first time for backdated promotion with seniority is impermissible in law where the employee has ceased to be in service. The judgment nowhere provides that in case, refusal/non-grant of promotion is bad, the same cannot be granted retrospectively.
18. If the law as laid down is read in the manner done by the Tribunal, in every case where promotion has been denied to any employee and challenge is laid, as and when the relief would be granted, may be post retirement, the same, from that point of time, for grant of relief would be taken as retrospective and in those circumstances, no petition questioning grant of promotion/refusal to grant promotion can be maintained, which cannot be the law nor the judgment in the case of Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra) provides so.
19. In that view of the matter, the dismissal of the O.A. on the said ground cannot be countenanced.
20. So far as the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner on the merits of the rejection and counsel for the respondents qua the O.A. being barred by limitation are concerned, as the Tribunal has not considered the said issue, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the Tribunal to consider the said aspects in accordance with law.
21. In case the Tribunal finds the O.A. as barred by limitation, there would be no requirement to decide the issue on merits. However, if the delay is found condonable, the issue may be decided on merits.
22. Consequently, the writ petition is partly allowed. The order impugned dated 30 October 2025 is set aside to the extent the O.A. has been dismissed based on the interpretation put to the judgment in the case of Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra).
23. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal to hear and decide the same in accordance with law in terms of the observations made herein before.
(Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) April 6, 2026 AHA