Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Deomani Pandey vs Indian Council Of Agricultural ... on 30 October, 2025
(Reserved on 07.10.2025)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench
Allahabad
****
This is the 30th Day of October, 2025
Original Application No. 1187/2017
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative)
Deo Mani Pandey Son of Late Rama Shanker Pandey Resident of Mini L.I.G.-58
Mahabali Puram Kalyanpur Kanpur.
...........Applicant
By Adv.: Shri Anshu Chaudhary
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Agriculture, Government of
India New Delhi.
2. Director, Indian Institute of Pulses Research Kalyanpur, Kanpur
3. Administrative Office ICAR, Indian Institute of Pulses, Research Kalyanpur
Kanpur, 208024[U.P].
............. Respondents
By Advocate: Shri N.P. Singh
ORDER
Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Heard Shri Anshu Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri N.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Instant Original Application has been filed by the applicant on 03.10.2016 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following main relief(s):-
"i. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 16.5.2015 passed by the Administrative Officer ICAR-Indian Institute of Pulses Research Kalyanpur, Kanpur.
ii. to issue a writ order in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to grant Category -II T-3 and T-4 SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.2 promotion to the petitioner as it fell due in accordance with departmental promotion committee January 2006 and January 2011 respectively to pay arrears of salary to the petitioner after re-fixation of the same forthwith.
iii. to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of commanding the respondent authorities to re-fix the pension and other retrial benefit of the petitioner in accordance with the Grade Scale which relates to Category-II T-3 and T-4 post and to pay the arrears of the same forthwith."
3. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the Original Application, are as under:-
3.1 The applicant was initially appointed as Sahayak Karamchari (Assistant Employee) on a regular post on 22.09.1979 in the Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur, which functions under the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR).
3.2 The applicant was subsequently promoted in January 1996 to the post of Field Farm Assistant (T-1) and, after completion of five years of regular service on the said post, was further promoted in January 2001 to Category T-2 on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC).
3.3 The applicant holds a Graduation Degree from Gorakhpur University and a Post-Graduation (M.A.) in Social Science and Economics from Kanpur University. It is the case of the applicant that he possesses higher educational qualifications than those prescribed under the relevant recruitment and promotion rules.
3.4 As per the applicable rules, an employee who has completed five years of satisfactory service in Category T-2 becomes eligible for consideration for promotion to Category II (T-3) through the DPC.
Accordingly, the applicant became eligible for such promotion in January 2006. However, his promotion was actually granted only in January 2011, after completion of ten years of service in Category T-2. The SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.3 applicant claims that such delay in promotion was contrary to the prescribed norms and adversely affected his service benefits.
3.5 The applicant had made representations to the authorities against the delay in promotion. However, his claim was rejected vide order dated 21.07.2006 on the ground that he did not possess a Bachelor's Degree in Science. The applicant has relied upon the Government Order dated 24.02.2006 issued by ICAR, whereby the Technical Service Rules were amended to provide that for promotion to Category II, the minimum qualification shall be a Bachelor's Degree in Agriculture or any other branch of Science or Social Science relevant to Agriculture or an equivalent qualification from a recognized university.
3.6 It is further stated that ICAR issued a clarification dated 19.05.2008 specifying that Economics is a subject falling under Social Science relevant to Agriculture. On the strength of this clarification, the applicant claimed that his Post Graduate qualification in Social Science and Economics satisfied the prescribed eligibility criteria. Notwithstanding the said clarification, the authorities again rejected his representation vide order dated 29.10.2008, reiterating that he did not possess the requisite qualification for promotion to Category T-3.
3.7 The applicant continued to represent his grievance before the competent authorities and asserted that he was entitled to promotion to T-3 with effect from January 2006. However, the respondents finally rejected his claim vide order dated 16.05.2015, holding that the promotion granted in January 2011 was proper and in accordance with rules. The applicant retired from service in September 2015 while his claim regarding promotion from the due date remained unresolved.
3.8 After the rejection order dated 16.05.2015, the applicant submitted another representation dated 15.02.2016 requesting reconsideration of his case in light of the clarification issued by ICAR and his educational SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.4 qualification. As no favourable response was received, the applicant filed the present Original Application challenging the aforesaid order dated 16.05.2015.
3.9 Since some delay had occurred in filing the Original Application, the applicant also filed M.A. No.4268/2016 seeking condonation of delay stating that he had been continuously pursuing his case with the authorities under a bona fide belief that his grievance would be redressed administratively. It is his contention that the delay is neither deliberate nor intentional but purely due to bona fide reasons.
4. In their counter reply dated 05.10.2017, the respondents have, at the outset, raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the Original Application and stated that:-
4.1 As per the by-laws of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), the Secretary, ICAR, is a necessary party in such matters. The applicant, however, has not impleaded the Secretary, ICAR, as a respondent and therefore, on this ground alone, the Original Application is stated to be defective and liable to be dismissed. Further, the applicant has wrongly impleaded the Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, whereas the ICAR is an autonomous body having its own Secretary, and as such, the Ministry of Agriculture has no direct role in the matter.
4.2 The applicant possessed a Bachelor's Degree in Arts from Gorakhpur University with Hindi, Political Science and Sociology subjects, who did not fulfill the prescribed minimum qualification for promotion to the grade of Technical Assistant (T-3) in Category-II as per the Technical Service Rules, 2000, as amended vide ICAR circular dated 24.02.2006. The amended rules prescribe that for promotion to Category-II (grades T-3 to T-5) in the Functional Group of Field/Farm Technicians, the minimum qualification shall be "Bachelor's Degree in SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.5 Agriculture or any other branch of Science/Social Science relevant to Agriculture or an equivalent qualification from a recognized University." Since the applicant did not possess the required qualification, his case was not considered for promotion on completion of five years' service in Category-I (T-2).
4.3 The Technical Service Rules classify the service into three categories, namely: Category-I (T-1 to T-2), Category-II (T-3 to T-5) and Category-III (T-6 to T-9). The applicant was initially promoted under Category-I from T-1 to T-2 on the basis of the qualifications prescribed for that category, which required only matriculation with a one-year certificate in the relevant field. However, for promotion to Category-II, the qualification requirement was higher and since the applicant did not hold a Bachelor's Degree in Agriculture or a related discipline, his case was considered only after completion of ten years of service in T-2, as per the applicable relaxation provisions. Accordingly, he was promoted to the grade of T-3 (Category-II) in January 2011 after completion of the prescribed period.
4.4 The ICAR circular dated 24.02.2006 made the qualification criteria for the Field/Farm Technician functional group more specialized than before, and therefore, the applicant's Bachelor's Degree in Arts without Economics as a subject could not be treated as a Social Science relevant to Agriculture. Hence, his promotion was granted strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and on completion of the required service period. The respondents have denied any arbitrariness or illegality in their action and have prayed for dismissal of the Original Application as being devoid of merit.
5. In reply to the aforesaid counter affidavit, the applicants have filed a rejoinder affidavit dated 16.09.2019, wherein they have denied the SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.6 averments made in the counter affidavit and reiterated the facts of the Original Application.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondents have acted arbitrarily and in violation of their own rules by denying the applicant promotion to Category-II (T-3) with effect from January 2006, despite his fulfilling the requisite eligibility conditions. He contended that the ICAR circular dated 24.02.2006 clearly recognizes a Bachelor's Degree in Social Science relevant to Agriculture as an eligible qualification for promotion to Category-II and subsequently, ICAR's clarification dated 19.05.2008 specifically included Economics within the ambit of Social Sciences relevant to Agriculture. The applicant, being a Post-Graduate in Social Science and Economics from Kanpur University, fully satisfied this qualification criterion. Therefore, denial of promotion on the ground that the applicant did not hold a Science degree is wholly unjustified and contrary to the said clarification.
6.1 Learned counsel emphasized that had the promotion been granted in January 2006, the applicant would have also been entitled to further promotion to T-4 in January 2011 and corresponding revision of his pay, pension and other retiral benefits, which the respondents have wrongly withheld.
6.2 It is further submitted that the respondents themselves promoted several similarly placed employees who possessed qualifications in subjects such as Economics and Sociology under the same rule framework, thereby creating a situation of hostile discrimination in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
6.3 The applicant had consistently represented his grievance during service and immediately after retirement, showing that there was no deliberate delay on his part. The rejection order dated 16.05.2015 is, SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.7 therefore, liable to be quashed as it overlooks the ICAR's own clarification and the settled principle that beneficial circulars should be applied liberally in favour of employees.
6.4 Learned counsel submitted that since the applicant retired in September 2015, he seeks only the notional promotion and consequential revision of pensionary benefits.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant did not possess the prescribed qualification for promotion to Category-II (T-3) as per the Technical Service Rules, 2000 and the ICAR amendment dated 24.02.2006. The applicant's Bachelor's Degree in Arts with subjects Hindi, Political Science and Sociology cannot be treated as a Social Science relevant to Agriculture. The subsequent clarification dated 19.05.2008 mentioning Economics as a relevant subject cannot be invoked retrospectively to confer eligibility for promotion that was due in January 2006.
7.1 He further submitted that the applicant did not possess a Bachelor's Degree in Economics; rather, his degree was in Arts and his Post- Graduation in Economics was obtained later and cannot be substituted for the prescribed basic qualification at the relevant time.
7.2 It is further submitted that the applicant was granted promotion to Category-II (T-3) in January 2011 under the relaxation provisions applicable to employees who did not fulfill the minimum educational qualification but had completed ten years of satisfactory service in Category-I (T-2). Therefore, the action of the respondents is fully in accordance with the rules and no illegality can be attributed. He also submitted that the applicant's Original Application suffers from laches, as it was filed long after the rejection of his claim in 2006 and 2008 and only after his retirement in 2015. The respondents have strictly followed the rules and applicable circulars and there is no violation of any right of SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.8 the applicant warranting interference by the Tribunal. Accordingly, it was prayed that the Original Application deserves to be dismissed being devoid of merit.
8. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for both sides and perused the pleadings and material available on record, it is not in dispute that the applicant retired from service in September 2015. The principal relief sought in this Original Application relates to grant of promotion to Category-II (T-3 and T-4) with effect from the alleged due dates of January 2006 and January 2011 respectively along with consequential re-fixation of pay, arrears, and revision of pensionary benefits. The claim, therefore, essentially pertains to promotional advancement and consequential financial adjustments.
9. Once an employee has superannuated, the question of granting retrospective promotion, refixing seniority or directing consideration for further promotional advancement becomes academic in nature and devoid of practical consequence. The settled legal position is that promotion takes effect only from the date it is actually granted and not from the date of arising of the vacancy or the date of recommendation by the Departmental Promotion Committee.
10. In Government of West Bengal & Ors. v. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3512, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering a similar question relating to retrospective promotion after retirement, held that:
"It is a well settled principle that promotion becomes effective from the date it is granted, rather than from the date a vacancy arises or the post is created. While the Courts have recognized the right to be considered for promotion as not only a statutory right but also a fundamental right, there is no fundamental right to the promotion itself."
The Apex Court, by referring to Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors. v. Dharamdeo Das, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1768, reaffirmed that SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.9 courts may interfere only where there is denial of consideration for promotion, but not to order actual promotion or retrospective seniority after retirement, as such directions serve no substantive purpose.
11. Similarly, in State of Bihar v. Akhouri Sachindra Nath & Ors., 1991 Supp (1) SCC 334, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:
"Retrospective seniority cannot be given to an employee from a date when he was not even borne in the cadre, nor can seniority be given with retrospective effect as that might adversely affect others. 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."
The Court, thus, clarified that any claim for backdated promotion or seniority is impermissible in law, especially where the employee has ceased to be in service.
12. Applying these settled propositions to the facts of the present case, it is clear that the applicant's grievance pertains to alleged delay in promotion from T-2 to T-3 and the consequential fixation of pay. However, since he retired in September 2015, any direction to reconsider or grant retrospective promotion would not confer any actual benefit. Such relief, even if granted, would be merely notional and unenforceable in view of the law declared by the Apex Court.
13. It is also noteworthy that the applicant was in fact promoted to T-3 in January 2011, though he claims that it should have been granted from January 2006. 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. The settled principle of service jurisprudence is that courts do not issue academic declarations which have no practical utility.
14. In light of the above discussion and the authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court in Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra), SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.10 Dharamdeo Das (supra) and Akhouri Sachindra Nath (supra), the claim of the applicant for retrospective promotion and consequential benefits cannot be sustained. Once an employee has superannuated, such reliefs become infructuous and devoid of enforceable right.
15. Accordingly, the Original Application stands dismissed. However, it is made clear that if any retiral or pensionary benefits admissible under the relevant rules have not yet been released to the applicant, the same shall be settled by the respondents in accordance with law within a reasonable time.
16. No order as to costs.
All pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA