Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Harish Pal Singh vs New Delhi Municipal Council on 15 October, 2025
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench,
New Delhi
O.A. No.3019 of 2016
Orders reserved on :16.09.2025
Orders pronounced on : 15.10.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjit More, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
1. Harish Pal Singh, SE (C),
Aged about 51 years,
S/o Late Sh. Chetra Pal Singh,
R/o B-24, 2nd Floor, Kaushambi,
Ghaziabad, U.P.
2. Mohd. Shamim Khan, Addi. CE (C),
Aged 56 years,
S/o Late Sh. M.U. Khan,
R/o 6, Palika Sadan, Harish Chander,
Mathura Lane, New Delhi-110001
3. K.K. Tyagi, SE (C),
Aged 54 years,
S/o Sh. V.P. Tyagi,
R/o H-79/45, West Punjabi Bagh,
New Delhi-110026
4. T.R. Meena, SE (C),
Aged 52 years,
S/o Sh. DhulaMeena,
R/o Flat No. 31, Sarojini Vihar,
Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi
5. M.A. Khan, SE (C) Retd.,
Aged 61 years,
S/o Late Sh. A.A. Khan,
R/o B-84, Mujeeb Bagh,
Jamia Nagar, New Delhi-110025
6. Sher Singh, SE (C),
Aged About 58 years,
S/o Sh. Parkash,
R/o Flat No. 5, Type-IV,
NDMC Complex, Kaka Nagar, New Delhi-110003
2025.10.16
RAVI KANOJIA17:34:05
+05'30'
Item No.22/C-1 2 OA No.3019/2016
7. William Parashar, EE (C),
Aged 51 years,
S/o Late Sh. R.K. Parashar,
R/o E-24, Radha Kunj, Brij Vihar,
Ghaziabad, U.P.
8. Ajay Gupta, SE (C),
Aged 49 years,
S/o Sh. D.M. Gupta,
R/o G-4, NDMC Officers Flats,
Aurangzeb Lane, New Delhi
9. S.A. Khan, SE (C),
Aged 49 years,
S/o Sh. Shoaib Ahmed Khan, R/o Flat
No. 5, Palika Sadan,
Harish Chandra Mathur Lane, New Delhi
10. Raj Shekhar, EE (C),
Aged 49 years,
S/o Sh. Shahi Shekhar Narayan Sinha,
R/o G-295A, Sec-11, Pratap Vihar, Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh
11. Gauri Shankar, SE (C),
Aged 48 years,
S/o Sh. Kailash Chand Gupta, R/o 201,
Block-V, Motia Khan,
New Delhi.
...Applicants
(By Advocate: Shri M.K. Bhardwaj
VERSUS
1. NDMC through its Chairman, Palika Kendra,
3rd Floor, Sansad Marg, New Delhi
2. The Secretary,
NDMC, 3rd Floor, Palika Kendra,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi
3. Union Public Service Commission Through its Secretary,
Dholdpur House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Shri Vaibhav Agnihotri with Ms. Suruchi Khandelwal
for R-1 and R-2 and Mr. Amit Yadav for Shri Ankur Chhibber, for R-3)
2025.10.16
RAVI KANOJIA17:34:05
+05'30'
Item No.22/C-1 3 OA No.3019/2016
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. RajinderKashyap, Member (A):
By filing the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants are seeking the following reliefs:-
"(a) To declare the action of respondents in not treating the applicants promotion to the post of EE (C) as regular from the date of grant of Adhoc promotion as illegal and issue appropriate direction to the respondents to treat the Adhoc promotion of applicants as EE (C) as regular and fix their seniority as EE (C) from the date of grant of Adhoc promotion as EE (C).
(b) To direct the respondents to treat the promotion of applicants to the post of EE as regular and consider their claim for further promotion to the post of SE (C), Addl. Chief Engineer (C) & Chief Engineer (C) by holding yearwise DPC and subject to meeting the eligibility criteria as per rules.
(c) To allow the OA with cost."
2. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have filed their replies opposing the claim of the applicants.
FACTS OF THE CASE
3. It is stated by the applicants that all the applicants, except applicant no. 5, were initially appointed as Assistant Engineer (Civil) [AE (C)] through the direct recruitment process. Applicant no.5 was initially appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) and was subsequently promoted to the post of AE (C).
3.1 The respondents, upon noting the appointments of the applicants, fixed their seniority in the grade of AE (C) (degree holders and diploma holders) as on 16.04.2004 (Annexure A-3).
2025.10.16
RAVI KANOJIA17:34:05
+05'30'
Item No.22/C-1 4 OA No.3019/2016
3.2 After completing eight (8) years of regular service as AE (C), the applicants became eligible for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) [EE (C)] in terms of the statutory Recruitment Rules for EE (C) (Annexure A-3, pp. 53-54), titled Recruitment Regulations for the post of Executive Engineer (Civil), New Delhi Municipal Council, 2004. The relevant portion reads as under:
Method of Recruitment, Promotion failing which by deputation including whether by direct recruitment short term contract.
or by promotion or by
deputation/absorption and
percentage of the posts to be
filled by various methods
In case of recruitment by (i) 50% by promotion of Assistant Engineers
promotion/deputation/absorpt (Civil) with 8 years regular service in the
ion, grade from which grade and possessing a degree in Civil
promotion/deputation/ Engineering from a recognised university /
absorption to be made institution or equivalent.
(ii) 50% by promotion of Assistant Engineers (Civil) with 10 years regular service in the grade and possessing diploma in civil engineering from a recognized University / Institution or equivalent.
Note:- Where Juniors who have completed their qualifying/eligibility service are being considered for promotion, their seniors would also be considered provided they are not short of the requisite qualifying/eligibility service by more than half of such qualifying/eligibility service or two years, whichever is less and have successfully completed their probation period for promotion to the next higher grade along with their juniors who have already completed such qualifying/eligibility service.
As per the existing guidelines on framing /amendment of RRs circulated by DoP&T vide their O.M. No.AB1401/48/2010-Estt.(RR) dated 31.12.2010, DoP&T's OM No.AB.14017/2/1997- Estt.(RR)/Pt. dated the 19.01.2007 and also keeping in view the DTL scales.) Deputation (including short term contract):-
Officers under the Central/State
Governments/Union Territories/Universities/
Recognised Research Institutions/Public Sector Undertakings/Semi-Government/ Autonomous or Statutory organisations:-
(i) Holding analogous posts on regular basis; or 2025.10.16 RAVI KANOJIA17:34:05 +05'30' Item No.22/C-1 5 OA No.3019/2016
(ii) With 5 years regular service in posts in the scale of 8000-13500 or equivalent; or
(iii) With 8 years regular service in posts in the scale of 6500-10500 or equivalent; and
(iv) Possessing a Degree in Civil Engineering from a recognised university or equivalent with considered for promotion, their seniors would also be considered provided they are not short of the requisite qualifying/ eligibility service by more than half of such qualifying / eligibility service or two years, whichever is less and have successfully completed their probation period for promotion to the next higher grade along with their juniors who have already completed such qualifying/ eligibility service.
If a DPC exists what is its 1. Chairman / Member, UPSC - Chairman composition 2. Secretary, NDMC - Member
3. Financial Advisor, NDMC - Member
4. Chief Engineer (Civil), NDMC - Member Circumstances in which Consultation with UPSC is necessary on each USPC to be consulted in occasion.
making recruitment 3.3 Despite availability of vacancies in the grade of EE (C), the respondents failed to convene a DPC after 2005 for filling the posts on regular basis.
3.4 On acquiring eligibility and noting the vacancies, the applicants requested consideration for promotion to the said post. The respondents initiated the process by calling for vigilance clearances, work conduct reports, and ACRs of all eligible AE (C). A duly constituted DPC considered the applicants, and all were found fit for promotion. However, instead of granting regular promotions, the respondents promoted the applicants only on an ad hoc basis. In some cases, a current duty charge (CDC) was given, though that aspect is not relevant here. Details of applicants' ad hoc promotions are tabulated below:
2025.10.16 RAVI KANOJIA17:34:05 +05'30' Item No.22/C-1 6 OA No.3019/2016 Applicant Name Date of Date of promotion to the post of EE (C) No. entry in on adhoc basis service as AE (C)
1. Harish Pal Singh 05.05.1988 29.08.2005 vide Office Order No. so (CE-II) I SAG-I dated 29.08.05
2. Mohd. Shamim 28.04.1988 29.08.2005 vide Office Order No. so (CE-II) Khan I SAG-I dated 29.08.05
3. K.K. Tyagi 31.08.1988 02.01.2006 vide Office Order No. so (CE-II) I SAG-I dated 18.09.06
4. T.R. Meena 09.10.1997 02.01.2006 vide Office Order No. so (CE-II) I SAG-I dated 18.09.06
5. M.A. Khan 26.02.1979/JE 28.02.2008 vide. Office Order No. SO (CE-
II)/ 437 I SAG-I dated 28.02.08
6. Sher Singh 15.04.1989 12.03.2007 vide Office Order No. SO (CE-II) I 446 I SAG-I dated 11.03.10
7. William Parashar 05.07.1996 01.11.2012 vide Office Order No. SO (CE-II) I 273 / SAG-I dated 01.11.12
8. Ajay Gupta 01.02.1996 02.02.2009 vide Office Order No. SO (CE-II) I 179 I SAG-I dated 02.02.09
9. S.A. Khan 15.01.1996 04.03.2008 vide Office Order No. SO (CE-
II)/ 510 /SAG-I dated 04.03.08
10. Raj Shekhar 15.01.1996 01.06.2009 vide Office Order No. SO (CE-II) I 784 /SAG-I dated 01.06.09
11. Gauri Shankar 15.01.1996 18.05.2009 vide Office Order No. SO (CE-
II)/ 687 / SAG-I dated 18.05.09 3.5 The applicants were aggrieved that, despite being promoted against clear vacancies and after due consideration by a regularly constituted DPC, their promotions were termed as ad hoc. The procedure followed was identical to that for regular promotions; hence, there was no justification for treating them otherwise. 3.6 Due to the delay in regularising their promotions as EE (C), the applicants suffered prejudice, as their further promotions to the posts of SE (C) and Chief Engineer (C) were also delayed. They made further representations requesting regularisation of their EE (C) promotions and convening of DPCs for higher posts. However, no such action was taken despite the existence of 9 vacancies of SE (C), 1 vacancy of Additional Chief Engineer (C), and 2 vacancies of Chief Engineer (C).
2025.10.16
RAVI KANOJIA17:34:05
+05'30'
Item No.22/C-1 7 OA No.3019/2016
3.7 By not holding timely DPCs, the respondents violated the applicants' fundamental right of consideration for promotion. Representations were submitted on 24.08.2009 (Annexure A-5) citing DoP&T instructions mandating timely DPCs (O.Ms. dated 10.04.1989, 08.09.1998, 14.12.2000, and 11.03.2011). These clearly require annual DPCs and fixing of responsibility in case of delays. 3.8 According to the applicants, the above instructions have been judicially recognised in UOI v. N.R. Banerjee, AIR 1997 SC 3761; UOI v. CAT, as also in Dr. Sahadeva Singh v. UOI, WP(C) 5549/2007 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, it was held that eligible officers must be considered for promotion from the due date, even if the DPC is delayed.
3.9 Despite this, the respondents only gave some applicants current duty charge of SE (C) and Additional Chief Engineer (C) vide orders dated 17.03.2011 and 08.08.2013 (Annexure A-6 Colly.). This further deprived applicants of substantive promotions despite available vacancies. Representations dated 24.12.2014 and 30.03.2016 (Annexure A-1 Colly.) were also ignored by the respondents. 3.10 The respondents ignored these representations without justification, overlooking that continued delay in regularisation and non-convening of DPCs causing grave prejudice. 3.11 The respondents also disregarded their own order dated 24.07.2009 (Annexure A-7 Colly.) wherein ad hoc promotions of Group 'A' and Group 'B' officers were treated as regular from the date 2025.10.16 RAVI KANOJIA17:34:05 +05'30' Item No.22/C-1 8 OA No.3019/2016 of ad hoc promotion. The CPWD adopted a similar approach by regularising ad hoc promotions of AEs (Civil & Electrical) after 8 years vide order dated 25.02.2015. NDMC itself had regularised ad hoc promotions of SE (C) and Chief Engineer (C), while MCD had issued a circular dated 20.07.1998 pursuant to Hon'ble Delhi High Court's judgment dated 17.04.1998 treating ad hoc service as regular for all purposes.
3.12 In the present case as well, since the applicants were promoted against clear vacancies, having fulfilled the eligibility criteria and undergone the same process as for regular promotions, their promotions ought to have been treated as regular. The use of the word ad hoc was unwarranted. Consultation with UPSC was the responsibility of the respondents, and applicants cannot be penalised for this lapse. Moreover, the applicants discharged full duties and responsibilities of EE (C), SE (C), and Additional Chief Engineer (C), including financial powers, like regular incumbents. Denial of regularisation in such circumstances is arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to settled law that promotions made against substantive vacancies following prescribed procedure must be treated as regular. Hence, this OA.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANTS
4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the applicants argued that the respondents have not disputed the fact that the applicants were promoted as EE (C) vide orders dated 19.08.2005 2025.10.16 RAVI KANOJIA17:34:05 +05'30' Item No.22/C-1 9 OA No.3019/2016 (Page 55), 28.02.2008 (Page 59), 11.03.2006 (Page 60), and 01.11.2012 (Page 61), and that they continued in service for 15 to 20 years uninterruptedly until regularization of some of the applicants vide order dated 11.09.2025. Therefore, the decision rendered by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1990) 2 SCC 715, is squarely applicable to the case of the applicants, as is evident from para 47(B) of the said judgment, which reads as under:
"47. To sum-up we hold that (A) Once an incumbent is appointed to apost according to rule, his seniority has tobe counted from the date of his appointmentand not according to the date of his confirmation.
The corollary of the above rule is that where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules and made as a stop-gap arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority.
(B) If the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee Continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted....."
4.1 The applicants have also been continued for 15 to20 years uninterruptedly till regularization in September 2025, as is evident from the Office Order dated 11.09.2025 issued by the respondents during the pendency of this OA vide which out of 11 applicants, five applicants were promoted as EE (C) on regular basis from the date of assumption of charge.
4.2 Learned counsel also submitted that order/judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of NDMC Vs. William Parashar & 2025.10.16 RAVI KANOJIA17:34:05 +05'30' Item No.22/C-1 10 OA No.3019/2016 Ors. dated 27.07.2017 in WP(C) No. 5139/2017 is squarely applicable in the present case as the ratio of the said judgment is that the promotion made after fulfilling the requisite requirements i.e. preparation of seniority list, zone of consideration, vigilance clearance, ACR of preceding 5 years and Work Conduct Report cannot be termed as adhoc merely because of word 'adhoc' in the promotion order. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi made the respondents (employees) therein eligible for 2ndTime Bound Promotional Scale by declaring their promotion to the post of EE as 'regular'. Once the Hon'ble High Court has declared the adhoc promotion of the respondents (employees) therein as regular, as is evident from para 14 of the said judgment, the same is binding and enforceable, particularly when the Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissing the SLP No. 5463/2018 on 30.04.2024 has upheld the said judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The Hon'ble High Court has already given declaration for treating the 'adhoc promotion of respondents (employees) therein as EE as 'regular promotion', therefore, the said declaration is binding on the respondents herein being party to the said judgment. In case the promotion of the applicants is termed as adhoc in the present case, the same would in contravention of the findings of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the said judgment.
REPLY OF RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2
5. Learned counsel for Respondents No.1 and 2 by referring to the reply filed submitted that in the year 1994, the New Delhi 2025.10.16 RAVI KANOJIA17:34:05 +05'30' Item No.22/C-1 11 OA No.3019/2016 Municipal Council Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") was enacted for the creation of the Respondent herein and for regulating matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. Sections 33 and 34 of the said Act provide for various categories of posts, namely Category A, B, C, and D. Further, Section 43 of the Act stipulates that no regulation for appointment to Category A and Category B posts shall be framed, except after consultation with the UPSC, i.e., Respondent No. 3 herein. Section 43 of the Act ibid is reproduced as under:
"43. Power of Council to make regulations.-(1) The Council may make regulations to provide for any one or more of the following matters, namely:-
( a) .... ..
(b) ...... .
(c) the qualifications of candidates for appointment to posts specified in section33 and to posts; dealt with in the Schedule of posts referred to in sub-section (1)of section 34 and the manner of selection for appointments to such posts;
(d) ........
(2) No regulation under clause (c) of sub-section (1) shall be made except after consultation with the Commission."
(emphasis supplied) 5.1 Further, learned counsel submitted that promotion to the post in question is governed by the provisions of the Recruitment Regulations, the provisions of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994, and the instructions issued on the subject by the DoP&T. As per the Act ibid, even appointments made pursuant to the said Regulations can be effected only after consultation with Respondent No. 3. In this regard, Section 40 of the Act is relevant and is reproduced below:
2025.10.16 RAVI KANOJIA17:34:05 +05'30' Item No.22/C-1 12 OA No.3019/2016 "40. No appointment to any category 'A' post within the meaning of clause (i) of subsection (4) of section 34 shall be made except after consultation with the Commission:
Provided that no such consultation with the Commission shall be necessary in regard to the selection for appointment: -
(a) to any acting or temporary post for a period not exceeding one year; or
(b) to such ministerial posts as may from time to time be specified by the Council in consultation with the Commission when such posts are to be filled by promotion; or
(c) to a post when at the time of such appointment the person to be appointed thereto is in the service of the Central Government or a State Government in a group A post; or
(d) to a permanent or temporary post, if the officer or other employee to be appointed is not likely to hold that post for more than one year; or if such officer or other employee is likely to hold the post for more than one year but not more than three years and the Commission advises that the appointment may be made without consulting the Commission; or
(e) to such other posts, as may from time to time, be specified by the Central Government in consultation with the Commission."
5.2 Further learned counsel submitted that the extant regulation prescribes the composition of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for the post in question, which is as under:-
1. Chairman /Member, UPSC - Chairman·
2. Secretary, NDMC - Member
3. Financial Advisor, NDMC - Member
4. Chief Engineer (Civil), NDMC - Member In furtherance of the above provisions, the earlier Recruitment Regulations were revised and n0tified by the Respondent - NDMC on 19.06.2004 (Annexure R-1). The said Regulations called as the regulations for the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) New 2025.10.16 RAVI KANOJIA17:34:05 +05'30' Item No.22/C-1 13 OA No.3019/2016 Delhi Municipal Council, 2004. The relevant portion of which reads as under:-
11. Method of recruitment : Promotion failing which by deputation including whether direct rectt. or short term contract.
by promotion or by deputation/absorption and percentage of the posts to be filled by various methods
12. In case of recruitment by : Promotion:
promotion/ deputation/ (i) 50% by promotion of Assistant Engineers (Civil) absorption grades from with 8 years regular service in the grade and which promotion/ possessing a degree in civil engineering from a deputation/ absorption recognised university/institution or to be made equivalent.
(ii) 50% by promotion of Assistant Engineers (Civil) with 10 years regular service in the grade and possessing diploma in civil engineering from a recognised University/Institution or equivalent.
Note :-Where Juniors who have completed their qualifying/eligibility service are being considered for promotion, their seniors would also be considered provided they are not short of the requisite qualifying/eligibility service by more than half of such qualifying/eligibility service or two years, whichever is less and have successfully Completed their probation period for promotion to the next higher grade along with their juniors who have already completed such qualifying/eligibility service.
13. If a DPC exists, what is its : Group 'A' DPC (for promotion) composition. 1. Chairman/Member, UPSC - Chairman
2. Secretary, NDMC - Member
3. Financial Advisor, NDMC - Member
4. Chief Engineer (Civil) NDMC -Member
14. Circumstances in which : Consultation with PSC is necessary on each UPSC to be consulted in occas1on.
making rectt.
2025.10.16
RAVI KANOJIA17:34:05
+05'30'
Item No.22/C-1 14 OA No.3019/2016
5.3 Learned counsel further submitted that, in the interim, to
ensure the functional efficacy of the organization, ad hoc promotions were made to the posts of Executive Engineer (EE). For this purpose, a screening committee was constituted, and certain Assistant Engineers (AEs), including the applicants, were promoted on an ad hoc basis solely on the recommendations of the said committee. It is relevant to note that this committee was not a substitute for the regular Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) constituted under the Regulations, as it recommended ad hoc promotions without consulting the UPSC. It was clearly conveyed to the applicants that such promotions were purely a stop-gap arrangement, in the interest of Council work, without any financial benefits, and would not confer any claim to seniority, regular appointment, or promotion. Respondents No. 1 and 2 were constrained to fill up the vacancies of EE (Civil) by resorting to ad hoc promotion of eligible candidates during the years 2005 to 2008, pending clarification from Respondent No. 3. The orders relating to such ad hoc promotions have been placed on record and relied upon by the applicants themselves (Annexure R-1 Colly.).
5.4 At this stage, learned counsel contended that the applicants are attempting to mislead this Tribunal by asserting that they were considered and promoted by a duly constituted DPC. He reiterated that, for the purpose of ad hoc promotions to the post of EE, only a screening committee was formed. He further submitted that a proposal was sent to Respondent No. 3, i.e., UPSC, for convening a 2025.10.16 RAVI KANOJIA17:34:05 +05'30' Item No.22/C-1 15 OA No.3019/2016 DPC to fill up the posts of Superintending Engineer (SE) (Civil) and Executive Engineer (Civil). In response, Respondent No. 3 conveyed that it would not consider promotions pertaining to the period prior to the repeal of the existing Recruitment Regulations or the notification of the revised Regulations approved by it. Respondent No. 3 also made it clear that it would not consider the regularization of ad hoc promotions granted by Respondents No.1 and 2. Thus, Respondent No. 3 was unwilling either to convene a DPC under the old Regulations for filling up vacancies arising prior to the notification of revised Regulations or to regularize the ad hoc promotions already made by Respondents No. 1 and 2 against such vacancies.
5.5 Learned counsel further submitted that, for holding a DPC for the post of EE (Civil), Respondents No. 1 and 2 made several efforts and addressed letters dated 09.12.2011, 19.02.2013, and 26.09.2013, requesting the Competent Authority, i.e., UPSC, to convene a DPC. However, the proposal was returned by Respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 11.04.2014 with certain observations. Thereafter, Respondents No. 1 and 2 again submitted a proposal for convening the DPC vide letter dated 21.05.2015. In the meantime, Respondents No. 1 and 2, vide order dated 02.06.2014, extended the Delhi Transco Ltd. (DTL) pay scales to the post of AE (Civil), thereby upgrading the post to Category 'A'. When this fact was communicated to Respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 23.11.2015, Respondent No. 3, vide letter dated 19.01.2016, stated that the earlier Recruitment Regulations for 2025.10.16 RAVI KANOJIA17:34:05 +05'30' Item No.22/C-1 16 OA No.3019/2016 promotion from Category 'B' AE (Civil) to EE (Civil) had become infructuous. Respondent No.3 further clarified that, in terms of DoPT's O.M. dated 09.03.2009 (Annexure R-III), before placing AEs (Civil) from Category 'B' to Category 'A', their suitability had to be assessed by Respondent No.3. Accordingly, Respondents No. 1 and 2 initiated the process of amending the Recruitment Regulations, which is still under consideration. It is therefore pertinent to note that the applicants cannot claim to have been granted ad hoc promotions in accordance with the procedures prescribed under the Regulations.
5.6 Learned counsel also submitted that the Council, vide Item No. 28 (1-H) dated 17.12.2008 (Annexure R-IV), resolved that action for regular promotion and/or regularization of ad hoc promotions to various Category 'A' and 'B' posts, in respect of vacancies arising prior to the notification of the revised Recruitment Regulations, would be undertaken by Respondents No.1 and 2 themselves. Consequently, 27 Assistant Engineers (Civil), who had earlier been promoted on an ad hoc basis under the old Recruitment Regulations, were regularized pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble High Court, vide Office Order dated 24.07.2009 (Annexure R-V). Even thereafter, the Department consistently pursued the matter with Respondent No.3 for convening a DPC for regular promotion to the post of EE, but the same could not materialize due to compliance requirements under various regulations and other impediments, many of which were attributable to the applicants themselves. It was further submitted 2025.10.16 RAVI KANOJIA17:34:05 +05'30' Item No.22/C-1 17 OA No.3019/2016 that, in furtherance of demands made by them, AEs (including the applicants) were granted Delhi Transco Ltd. (DTL) pay scales. Due to the consequent change in grade pay, the post of AE was reclassified as a Category 'A' post. In response to the communications of Respondents No. 1 and 2, the Under Secretary clarified that, as per DoPT's O.M. dated 09.03.2009, before placing AEs from Category 'B' to Category 'A', their suitability had to be assessed by Respondent No.3. Accordingly, Respondent No. 3 was requested to clarify whether the assessment of AEs was to be undertaken by it or by Respondents No. 1 and 2. Furthermore, in a writ petition filed by another AE, the Hon'ble High Court directed that while Respondents No. 1 and 2 could consider granting work charge of the EE post to AEs, in the event any DPC was to be convened for appointment to the regular or ad hoc post of EE, Respondents No. 1 and 2 were first required to seek leave of the Court. The interpretation and implications of the said order also contributed to the stalling of the process and further delay. As such, the alleged grievances of the applicants are only a consequence of policy compliance and adherence by Respondents No. 1 and 2 to applicable legal provisions, coupled with demands made by the AEs themselves. REBUTTAL TO CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT No.1 & 2
6. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that so far as the plea of respondents that NDMC is not at fault as the UPSC did not convene DPC in spite of sending letters as placed on record by filing MA is concerned, it is evident from the documents that after letter of 2025.10.16 RAVI KANOJIA17:34:05 +05'30' Item No.22/C-1 18 OA No.3019/2016 UPSC dated 21.01.2008 (Page 7 of MA), the NDMC did not give any response for near about 3 long years. The UPSC sent another letter dated 27.09.2010 (Page 15 of MA), thereafter, the NDMC responded after 3 years on 19.06.2013.Thereafter, the response was given on 21.05.2015 (Page 17 of MA) and 19.01.2016. Thereafter, no efforts were made for holding regular DPC as per the mandate of DoP&T Office Memorandums dated10.04.1989, 08.09.1989, 14.12.2000, 11.03.2011(Page No. 20 & 22 of the OA). None of the aforesaid communications contained the proposal for DPC, but the same are in the form of clarification. Even otherwise also, when as per the mandate of DoP&T's instructions and law on the subject, the regular DPCs have not been convened, judicial review is warranted in this case in view of the dicta laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamit Nadu and others, reported in (1974) 4 SCC 3 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 165the test for the purposes of Article 14. It was stated therein that if the administrative action was "arbitrary", it could be struck down under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle is now uniformly followed in all courts more rigorously than the one based on classification. Arbitrary action by the administrator is described as one that is irrational and not based on sound reason, which is also described as one that is unreasonable.
6.1 Learned counsel also submitted that so far as the plea of respondents that the applicants were promoted as EE and granted the Scale of EE as such no prejudice is caused to them in continuing them 2025.10.16 RAVI KANOJIA17:34:05 +05'30' Item No.22/C-1 19 OA No.3019/2016 on adhoc basis is concerned, the prejudice to the applicants is writ large as on one hand, they were made to serve like regular EE and on other hand, they were deprived from promotion as SE on completion of 10 years as EE (Year 2015)and as Chief Engineer on completion of 2 years service as SE (Year 2017) (Recruitment Rules alongwith MA No. 3465/2017).
6.2 Learned counsel also submitted that so far as the plea of respondents that the applicants were not promoted to the post of EE(C) as per Recruitment Rules inasmuch as the UPSC was not consulted is concerned, it is submitted that the applicants cannot be made to suffer for the fault of the respondents committed in not consulting UPSC and secondly, the adhoc promotion continued for 15 to 20 years cannot be treated as adhoc by any stretch of imagination. The continuous regular service rendered for 15 to 20years without any break cannot be washed away as ruled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Direct Recruitment Class II Engineering Officers Association (supra).
6.3 In support of the claim of the applicants, learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance on the following judgments:-
1. Direct Recruitment Class II Engineering Officers Association(1990) 2 SCC 715;
2. Sunil Kumar Mehra Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. 2013 SCC ONLINE Delhi 1858;
2025.10.16 RAVI KANOJIA17:34:05 +05'30' Item No.22/C-1 20 OA No.3019/2016
3. NDMC Vs. William Parashar & Ors. Judgment dated 27.07.2017 in WP (C) No. 5139/2017 decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court,
4. Sushil Sharma Vs. State of Manipur, WP (C) No. 592/2021, judgment dated 26.05.2022 decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court;
5. UOI & Ors. Vs. Kamalini Nagrajan Dutt & Ors.
Judgment dated 02.04.2025, WP (C) No.1316/2008 decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court;
6. NHAI Vs. Sh. Krishna Murari Sharma in WP (C) No. 4245/2024, judgment dated 09.04.2024 decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court;
7. Dr. Mushtehasan and Ors. Union of India & Anr.
order/judgment in OA No.1043/2023 decided on 09.09.2025 by this Tribunal; and
8. Govt. of NCT of Delhi &Anr. Vs .Purnima Gupta, judgment dated 07.04.2025 decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
7. The respondent no.3, i.e., UPSC has also filed reply and by referring to the contents of the same, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submitted that the Union Public Service Commission are an advisory body setup under Article 315 of the Constitution. of India and they have a Constitutional obligation to ensure that all the selections made for regular appointments to the services/posts under the Union of India, as falling under the purview of the Commission, are made strictly in accordance with the statutory Recruitment Rules and the relevant instructions issued by 2025.10.16 RAVI KANOJIA17:34:05 +05'30' Item No.22/C-1 21 OA No.3019/2016 the Government of India from time to time.Further,the Government of India, the Department of Personnel & Training, vide their OM No.22011/5/86-Estt (D) dated 10.04.1989, have issued guidelines/instructions as amended from time to time, on holding of Departmental Promotion Committee meetings. The Commission holds various DPC meetings strictly in accordance with the aforesaid and other guidelines/ instructions issued by the DoP&T from time to time on the subject as also taking into consideration various other essential inputs such as Seniority List, ACRs/ APARs, Vigilance clearance, Penalty statements, etc. of feeder category officers. 7.1 Learned counsel for respondent No.3 also submitted that the applicants in the instant OA have claimed that they are regular AE (C) in NDMC and eligible for promotion to the next higher grade, i.e., EE (C). The respondent nos.1 and 2 were having sufficient vacancies of EE (C) and were, therefore, required to hold regular DPC meetings to fill up the available vacancies. Instead of convening the regular DPC meetings, the respondent nos.1 and 2 promoted the officers as EE (C) on ad-hoc basis. On account of the delay in convening the regular DPC and issuing the promotion order for the post of EE (C), the applicants were being deprived of further regular promotion to the next higher grade/posts i.e. Superintending Engineer(Civil), Addl. Chief Engineer(Civil) as well as Chief Engineer(Civil). Therefore, the applicants requested the respondent nos.1 and 2 to regularize their adhoc service as EE (C) and to hold regular DPC for promotion to the further higher posts of 2025.10.16 RAVI KANOJIA17:34:05 +05'30' Item No.22/C-1 22 OA No.3019/2016 Superintending Engineer (Civil) and Chief Engineer (Civil). However, the respondent nos.1 and 2 did not take any action for either treating the promotions of applicants as EE (C) on regular basis or holding DPCs for their promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil)/Chief Engineer (Civil) against available vacancies. Instead of convening the regular DPCs for the above posts, they only granted current duty charge to some of the applicants to the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil)and Addl. Chief Engineer (Civil) and ignored their representations without any justification regarding the delay in not treating the adhoc promotion of EE (C) as regular service.
7.2 Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 further submitted that the matter of adhoc promotion is an administrative matter in which the Commission has no role to play. The Department has to take action, if any, with regard to the grievance relating to adhoc promotion. With regard to the regularization in the post of EE (C), learned counsel submitted that a DPC proposal was received in the Commission on 17.07.2007 from NDMC for promotion to the above post for the vacancy year 2004 to 2007 on the basis of Recruitment Rules dated 16.09.2004. As some of the vacancies were of 2004 which occurred before the notification of new Recruitment Rules on 16.09.2004, these vacancies were required to be considered as per the old Recruitment Rules (Annexure-R/3-1). As the old RRs of 1992 did not provide for consultation with UPSC for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil),the vacancies, which occurred 2025.10.16 RAVI KANOJIA17:34:05 +05'30' Item No.22/C-1 23 OA No.3019/2016 before 16.09.2004, were required to be filled up by the respondent nos. 1 and 2. Therefore, the respondent nos.1 and 2 vide DO letter dated 1.9.2009(Annexure-R/3-2)requested to withdraw the proposal sent earlier for submitting a fresh proposal for convening DPC for vacancies which arose after the notification of new Recruitment Rules. The above proposal submitted by the respondent nos.1 and 2 was disposed of as withdrawn by NDMC vide Commission's letter dated 13.10.2009(Annexure-R/3-3). Thereafter, no such proposal was received from the NDMC.
7.3 Learned counsel further submitted that no communication/proposal for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil), Additional Chief Engineer (Civil) has been received till date in the Commission. 7.4 Lastly, learned counsel for respondent no.3 submitted that the applicants have not been able to make out any case against the respondent no.3 nor has any action of the Commission been challenged in the instant Original Application and, therefore, so far as respondent no.3 is concerned, this Tribunal may be pleased to pass necessary orders to discharge the Commission from the array of respondents.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings available on record as well as the judgments relied upon by the parties.
2025.10.16
RAVI KANOJIA17:34:05
+05'30'
Item No.22/C-1 24 OA No.3019/2016
ANALYSIS
9. Having regard to the pleadings available on record and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we observe that it is an admitted fact that the applicants were promoted as EE (C) against substantive vacancies upon completion of the requisite length of service prescribed under the Recruitment Regulations. It is also undisputed that the applicants have been continuously discharging the full duties and responsibilities of EE (C), including financial powers, for more than 15-20 years. The case of the respondents nos. 1 and 2 (NDMC) is that such promotions were only on an ad hoc basis, on the recommendation of a screening committee, and without consultation with the UPSC, as mandated under Sections 40 and 43 of the NDMC Act, 1994. They submitted that the promotions were only stop-gap arrangements, conferring no right to seniority or regularisation. However, the applicants, on the other hand, contended that the procedure followed was the same as for regular promotion and that they were promoted against clear vacancies, and that their long and uninterrupted service of nearly two decades renders the label of ad hoc meaningless. They rely heavily on the judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1990) 2 SCC 715, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down as under:
"If an appointment is made by way of promotion after following the prescribed procedure, though without consulting the Commission, the service rendered in such 2025.10.16 RAVI KANOJIA17:34:05 +05'30' Item No.22/C-1 25 OA No.3019/2016 appointment cannot be treated as fortuitous or ad hoc; it has to be counted for seniority."
10. Keeping in view the above admitted factual matrix of the case, we are of the considered view that the following issues are required for adjudication by this Tribunal in the instant case:
1. Whether the promotion of the applicants to the post of EE (C) on an ad hoc basis, made on the recommendation of a screening committee, can be treated as regular promotion in law, despite the absence of prior consultation with the UPSC as mandated under Sections 40 and 43 of the NDMC Act, 1994?
2. Whether the applicants, having been promoted against substantive vacancies and having continuously discharged the duties of EE (C) for over 15-20 years, acquire a right to regularisation of their service, seniority, and consequential promotion, in light of the principles laid down in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v.
State of Maharashtra (1990) 2 SCC 715 and subsequent judgments? and
3. Whether the failure of the respondents to convene DPCs in time, despite repeated correspondence with UPSC, can be used as a ground to deny the applicants the benefit of regular promotion?
11. So far as issue (1), as mentioned in para 10 above, is concerned, we find that it is an admitted position that the applicants were promoted to EE (C) on an ad hoc basis between 2005-2012, based on recommendations of a screening committee, without prior consultation with UPSC. They continued discharging full duties of EE (C) for 15-20 years. The NDMC itself has, in the past, regularized ad 2025.10.16 RAVI KANOJIA17:34:05 +05'30' Item No.22/C-1 26 OA No.3019/2016 hoc promotions of other officers in similar circumstances, as is evident from Office Order dated 24.07.2009 (Annexure A-7) as well as the same Office Order dated 24.07.2009 is also annexed by respondent nos.1 and 2 as (Annexure R-V with their reply).
12. It is apt to note, at this stage, the decision of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association(Supra)wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court ruled that if an officer continues in the post uninterruptedly until regularization, the officiating period is to be counted as service for seniority and promotion purposes. Further, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of NDMC vs. William Parashar & Ors. (supra)held that promotions made after fulfillment of eligibility criteria, even if termed ad hoc, cannot be denied the character of regular promotion.
13. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and others (supra) ruled that arbitrary action is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:-
"85. The last two grounds of challenge may be taken up together for consideration. Though we have formulated the third ground of challenge as a distinct and separate ground, it is really in substance and effect merely an aspect of the second ground based on violation of Articles 14 and 16. Article 16 embodies the fundamental guarantee that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Though enacted as a distinct and independent fundamental right because of its great importance as a principle ensuring equality of opportunity in public employment which is so vital to the building up of the new classless egalitarian society envisaged in the Constitution, Article 16 is only an instance of the application of the concept of equality enshrined in Article 14. In other words, Article 14 is the genus while Article 16 is a species. Article 16 gives effect to the doctrine of equality in all matters 2025.10.16 RAVI KANOJIA17:34:05 +05'30' Item No.22/C-1 27 OA No.3019/2016 relating to public employment. The basic principle which, therefore, informs both Articles 14 and 16 is equality and inhibition against discrimination. Now, what is the content and reach of this great equalising principle? It is a founding faith, to use the words of Bose. J., "a way of life", and it must not be subjected to a narrow pedantic or lexicographic approach. We cannot countenance any attempt to truncate its all-embracing scope and meaning, for to do so would be to violate its activist magnitude. Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be "cribbed, cabined and confined" within traditional and doctrinaire limits. From a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14, and if it effects any matter relating to public employment, it is also violative of Article
16. Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment. They require that State action must be based on valid relevant principles applicable alike to all similarly situate and it must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant considerations because that would be denial of equality. Where the operative reason for State action, as distinguished from motive inducing from the antechamber of the mind, is not legitimate and relevant but is extraneous and outside the area of permissible considerations, it would amount to mala fide exercise of power and that is hit by Articles 14 and 16. Mala fide exercise of power and arbitrariness are different lethal radiations emanating from the same vice: in fact the latter comprehends the former. Both are inhibited by Articles 14 and 16.
86. It is also necessary to point out that the ambit and reach of Articles 14 and 16 are not limited to cases where the public servant affected has a right to a post. Even if a public servant is in an officiating position, he can complain of violation of Articles 14 and 16 if he has been arbitrarily or unfairly treated or subjected to mala fide exercise of power by the State machine. It is therefore, no answer to the charge of infringement of Articles 14 and 16 to say that the petitioner had no right to the post of Chief Secretary but was merely officiating in that post. ...."
13.1 We observe that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case continues to be followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by various High Courts to this day. 13.2 Further in the case of UOI & Ors. Vs. Kamalini Nagrajan Dutt & Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed as follows:-
2025.10.16 RAVI KANOJIA17:34:05 +05'30' Item No.22/C-1 28 OA No.3019/2016 "3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this Court in its Judgment in L.K. Mandoli (supra), has clarified that the direction of the learned Tribunal was in the peculiar circumstances of that case, and cannot be treated as a general rule.
Placing reliance on the Judgment of this Court in UOI v. K.L.Taneja, 2013 SCC Online Del 1428, he submits that service jurisprudence does not recognize retrospective promotion and even if due to administrative reasons, which are not attributable to any malice, the DPC could be held in a year, and that retrospective promotion cannot be granted.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents are similarly situated as the respondent in L.K. Mandoli (supra); the only distinction is that the respondents were appointed on an ad hoc basis in the year 1999 to the post of Junior Administrative Grade and were granted regular promotion on 08.12.2004, that is, close to the date of 14.10.2004 when the respondents in L.K. Mandoli (supra) were granted regular promotion to the post of Senior Administrative Grade to which they were initially appointed on an ad hoc basis in the year 2001.
5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.
6. This Court in L.K. Mandoli (supra) has, while recognizing the general rule that retrospective seniority is not to be granted, at the same time, upheld the direction of the learned Tribunal by holding that in the peculiar facts of the present case, where UPSC did not participate in the selection process because of which the petitioner made ad hoc appointments, the respondents would be entitled to claim retrospective seniority from the date of their appointment.
7. We do not see any reason to differ from the above finding of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
8. Accordingly, we find no merit in the present petition. The same is dismissed.
9. We again clarify that this Judgment is being passed in the peculiar facts of this case."
13.2 We also deem it appropriate to refer the Order/Judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in NHAI Vs. Sh. Krishna Murari Sharma (supra) in which the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had also an occasion to deal with the similar issue, the relevant portion of which reads as under:-
"10. From a perusal of the aforesaid extracts of the impugned order, we find that the learned Tribunal has allowed the applicant's OA by taking into account that in consonance with Clause 15 (3) of the Regulations, the petitioner had considered the applicant's four years 2025.10.16 RAVI KANOJIA17:34:05 +05'30' Item No.22/C-1 29 OA No.3019/2016 service from the date of his appointment as a deputationist Manager (T) on 03.06.2010 for the purposes of determining his effective date of entry into the cadre of Dy.GM (T). The learned Tribunal was of the view the petitioner having itself treated the applicant as a Dy. GM (T) w.e.f. 02.06.2014, it could not while considering his case for promotion to the post of GM(T), ignore this period between 02.06.2014 to 05.01.2016. The learned Tribunal found that once the applicant had been treated as Dy. GM (T) w.e.f. 02.06.2014, his seniority in the said post was required to be counted from the said date for all purposes including for the purpose of his promotion to the post of GM (T).
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to deny that as per Clause 15 (3) of the Regulations, the service of the applicant as a deputationist could not be ignored. He has, however, contended that once the circular dated 22.05.2017 made it clear that promotion to the post of Dy. GM (T) would not be given from a date prior to the date of absorption of a deputationist, the applicant could not claim that his promotion to the post of Dy. GM (T) should be taken into account from 02.06.2014 as against 05.01.2016 i.e., the date on which he was absorbed. Having given our thoughtful consideration to this plea, we find that the provisions of this circular are contrary to the specific terms of Clause 15 (3) of the Regulations which clearly envisages that seniority of persons initially appointed on deputation and, subsequently, absorbed in the authority shall be reckoned from the date of their initial appointment. Such a circular which is contrary to the terms of the statutory regulations has to be necessarily ignored. We are, therefore, in agreement with the learned counsel for the applicant that the petitioner's circular dated 22.05.2017 could not supersede the regulations, which clearly provided for inclusion of the period of deputation towards seniority.
12. In this regard, we may also refer to para nos. 11 and 12 of the decision in National Highways Authority of India (supra) wherein a co-ordinate Bench has held as under:-
"11. It is an accepted position that whether on deputation or after absorption, the applicants when posted as Manager (Technical) were in PB-3 (Rs. 15600-39100) with a Grade Pay of Rs. 6600. It is not the case of the NHAI that his requirement or eligibility condition is not fulfilled or satisfied by the applicants. Their contention is that the applicants when on deputation were not on regular service at the post of the Manager (Technical). This contention is predicated on the plea that the period during which the applicants were on deputation, they held a lien in their parent department. 12. The submission, in our opinion, is without merit and has been rightly rejected by the Tribunal. We have quoted the recruitment regulations with regard to appointment to the post of Manager (Technical). One of the modes of appointment is by transfer on deputation. This mode was applied and adopted by the NHAI when they had inducted the applicants as Manager (Technical). The applicants were appointed as Manager (Technical) after a proper selection process. There was no break and the appointment on deputation was followed by absorption without any time gap. The pay scale did not undergo any revision, change or upgradation. Nature of duties performed etc. did not change. The Regulation quoted above is not expressly or impliedly to the contrary. It is not stipulated that the deputation period would not be counted as 2025.10.16 RAVI KANOJIA17:34:05 +05'30' Item No.22/C-1 30 OA No.3019/2016 "regular service". The experience stipulated in clause A.(i) would relate to appointment/recruitment by way of deputation or direct recruitment."
13. In the light of the aforesaid, we find no infirmity in the impugned order, which in essence, only directs the petitioner to act in accordance with its statutory Regulations."
13.4 Further in the case of Dr. Mushtehasan and Ors. (supra), this Tribunal, in which one of us, namely, Rajinder Kashyap , was one of the Members, has dealt with the similar issue and observed as under:-
"15. The principle laid down by the Constitution Bench in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra (supra) also supports the applicants claim, inasmuch as they were appointed through due process, continued uninterruptedly till regularisation, and the nature of their services were not tainted by any illegality. Therefore, the entire length of their service, inclusive of ad-hoc period, is liable to be counted for the limited purpose of grant of in-situ promotion/upgradation."
13.5 Further in the case of Govt. of NCT of Delhi and another vs. Purnima Gupta (supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court considered the similar issue very recently, the relevant portion of which reads as under:-
"16. The only question, therefore, which is left to be considered is whether the period of services rendered by the respondent as Chief Prosecutor on an ad hoc basis can be counted for the purpose of her being considered for the promotion to the post of Director, Prosecution.
17. In Union of India v. Harish Chander Bhatia, (1995) 2 SCC 48, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even where a person is appointed on officiating basis and not on permanent basis, and continues to perform duties for a very long period, them, to deny the benefit of such long period of service for the purpose of seniority is an unjustified and arbitrary act. It was held as under:
"7. Shri Tulsi, however, contends that Rule 25 visualises officiating appointment and not permanent; and that appointment is required to be made when a member of the Service is not available. Though this is so, but the facts of the present case would show that though the appointments were stated to be officiating these 2025.10.16 RAVI KANOJIA17:34:05 +05'30' Item No.22/C-1 31 OA No.3019/2016 continued for a very long period, which in the case of respondent 1 was of about 12 years as he came to be appointed under Rule 25 on 6-11-1972 and was fixed permanently in the slot meant for promotees on 28-7- 1984. An officiating appointment for over a decade cannot be treated as fleeting appointment with no service benefits to be given. Any other view would very seriously prejudice such a service holder who, even after having rendered service equal to those of permanent appointees for a long period, and that too for proper functioning of the Service, would be denied the benefit of the same for no cogent reasons. Any other view is bound to have a demoralising effect in the Service as a whole. As the appointments under Rule 25 are also to duty posts, which may form part of the strength of Service because what has been stated in Rule 4(3), we are of the view that justice of the case and the need to preserve the efficient functioning of the Service would require to treat the appointments of the respondents as permanent, despite their having been first appointment on officiating basis."
18. In Deep Chand Sharma (supra), this Court held that though seniority cannot relate back to the year of vacancy, it should relate back to the date of appointment of a person on ad hoc basis. The relevant extracts from the judgment are reproduced as under:
"14. Another dispute, which has direct bearing on the problem at hand, is as to whether seniority to Respondent Nos. 1 to 38 should be given from the date on which the vacancies arose or from the date on which the said Respondents started working on adhoc basis. The Tribunal has directed the present Petitioners to promote Respondent Nos. 1 to 38 on regular basis from dates of the vacancy year/the date of vacancy against which they had already been appointed on ad-hoc basis. 15. Even though the vacancies, against which the ad-hoc promotions took place, arose on different dates in the years 2008-09 and 2009-10, since the present Respondents were appointed on ad-hoc basis against the said vacancies in two tranches, the dates of appointments for the purposes of seniority cannot relate back to the dates when vacancies arose. Instead, seniority had to be counted from the date on which they started functioning on ad-hoc basis, provided vacancies existed on said dates. ...."
19. This Court, in Deep Chand Sharma (supra), also placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.N. Premachandran (supra), wherein it was held as under:
"7. It is not in dispute that the posts were to be filled up by promotion. We fail to understand how the appellant, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, could question the retrospective promotion granted to the private respondents herein. It is not disputed that in view of the administrative lapse, the Departmental Promotion Committee did not hold a sitting from 1964 to 1980. The respondents cannot suffer owing to such administrative lapse on the part of the State of Kerala for no fault on 2025.10.16 RAVI KANOJIA17:34:05 +05'30' Item No.22/C-1 32 OA No.3019/2016 their part. It is also not disputed, that in ordinary course they were entitled to be promoted to the post of Assistant Director, in the event, a Departmental Promotion Committee had been constituted in due time. In that view of the matter, it must be held that the State of Kerala took a conscious decision to the effect that those who have been acting in a higher post for a long time, although on a temporary basis, but were qualified at the time when they were so promoted and found to be eligible by the Departmental Promotion Committee at a later date, should be promoted with retrospective effect."
20. In Rakesh Gupta (supra), this Court, while accepting the legal proposition that generally ad hoc services should not be included towards regular services, in similar facts, found it to be highly unfair to deprive an employee of the benefit of ad hoc services when, despite the employee's eligibility and availability of vacancy, the ad hoc promotion had continued only due to the non-holding of the DPC, especially in cases where the ad hoc services were subsequently followed by regular appointment to the same post. The relevant extracts of the said judgment are reproduced hereinbelow:
"6. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid extract of the decision in K.C. Meena (supra), we find that in the aforesaid case, the Court after noticing the fact that the department was at fault for not conducting DPC for years together had directed that ad hoc service rendered by the employee concerned in the post of Superintending Engineer to which he was subsequently promoted on regular basis, be included for the purpose of considering his eligibility for the post of Chief Engineer. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said case did not pertain to the question of counting ad hoc service towards regular service as an eligibility criteria for further promotion.
7. We have also considered the decision in Cyprian Kujur (supra) relied upon by the petitioner but find that the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said decision, the Court was dealing with a claim of an employee who was granted an ad hoc promotion as a LDC and was granted regular promotion as a LDC after he qualified the requisite typing test prescribed as a condition for promotion. In the present case, it is undisputed that the respondent was meeting the eligibility criteria for regular promotion to the post of Assistant Director on the date when he was granted ad hoc promotion to the said post. This decision therefore does not forward the case of the petitioner.
8. In the light of the aforesaid, even though we agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner, that generally ad hoc service is not to be included towards regular service, we are of the view that in a case like the present, where despite his eligibility and availability of vacancy, the respondent was considered only for ad hoc promotion as an Assistant Director on 29.08.2007, it will be highly unfair to deprive him of the benefit of the said ad hoc service specially when his ad hoc appointment as 2025.10.16 RAVI KANOJIA17:34:05 +05'30' Item No.22/C-1 33 OA No.3019/2016 an Assistant Director was followed by regular appointment. In our considered opinion, when despite the respondent having rendered more than ten years of service as a Publicity Assistant as against the requirement of three years service for promotion to the post of Assistant Director, the petitioner granted him only ad hoc promotion as Assistant Director on 29.08.2007, no ground is made out to interfere with the directions issued by the learned Tribunal"
21. In Manpreet Singh Poonam (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering a situation where an employee had taken voluntary retirement even prior to the holding of the DPC, the Hon'ble Court held that the said employee has only a right to be considered for the promotion and not a vested right to a promotional post, and this supervening fact would have a vital bearing on such right. However, for those who remained in services, the Hon'ble Court also approved that where the candidate was found successful in consideration by the DPC, the seniority should be fixed from the year of actual vacancy arising as per the rules therein. The relevant extracts of the judgment are reproduced as under:
"17. On facts, there is no dispute that the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 518 of 2017 was given promotion after the successful consideration by the DPC. On such clearance the appellant has rightly fixed the promotion with the year of actual vacancy, as per rules. Thus, the respondent neither on facts nor on law can claim retrospective promotion, and that too from the year 2009 being the year in which he was placed in the select list against a notional vacancy, especially when the then existing vacancy accrued only in the year 2011, when the JAG-I officers were actually inducted into IAS, against which he was promoted. As such, the promotion cannot be granted retrospectively and extended to give benefit and seniority from the date of notional vacancy, causing violence to Rules 4 and 7 of the 2003 Rules.
18. A mere existence of vacancy per se will not create a right in favour of an employee for retrospective promotion when the vacancies in the promotional post are specifically prescribed under the rules, which also mandate the clearance through a selection process. It is also to be borne in mind that when we deal with a case of promotion, there can never be a parity between two separate sets of rules. In other words, a right to promotion and subsequent benefits and seniority would arise only with respect to the rules governing the said promotion, and not a different set of rules which might apply to a promoted post facilitating further promotion which is governed by a different set of rules.
19. In the present case, the authority acting within the rules has rightly granted promotion after clearance of DPC on 17-4- 2012 with effect from 1-7-2011, when the actual vacancies arose, which in any case is a benefit granted to the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 518 of 2017. In our view, this exercise of power by the authority of 2025.10.16 RAVI KANOJIA17:34:05 +05'30' Item No.22/C-1 34 OA No.3019/2016 granting retrospective promotion with effect from the date on which actual vacancies arose is based on objective considerations and a valid classification."
22. In Rajkumar (supra), that has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether the vacancy arising prior to the promulgation of the new rules is to be filled as per the old or as per the amended rules. In the present case, this controversy is not germane inasmuch as the respondent has been considered as per the amended rules as well and finding her to be fit for promotion in the meeting of the DPC held on 01.05.2023, she was granted promotion to the post of Chief Prosecutor vide order dated 29.05.2023. Therefore, the suitability and eligibility of the respondent to the said post stands established under both the Rules, that is the previous and the amended Rules.
23. As far as the plea of the petitioners is concerned, that the respondent, at the very best, has a right to be considered for promotion and cannot claim a vested right for a promotion, we find that the learned Tribunal has not passed any directions to grant promotion to the respondent to the post of Director, Prosecution, but has merely directed a consideration of the case of the respondent for such promotion.
24. The above plea, therefore, also cannot come to the aid of the petitioners.
25. Accordingly, we direct that the effect of the retirement of the respondent on 31.12.2024 shall also be considered by the petitioners, while considering the case of the respondent in terms of the impugned order.
26. In view of the above, we find no merit in the present petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. The pending application is also disposed of as having been rendered infructuous."
14. We also observe that the term ad hoc in the promotion orders is procedural/formal and was used to address temporary constraints (consultation with UPSC). However, the applicants were promoted after fulfilling eligibility criteria, against substantive vacancies, and performed the duties of EE (C) continuously for 15-20 years. The reliance on prior UPSC consultation, though legally relevant, cannot penalize the officers, especially when the administrative delay was on part of NDMC/UPSC. As such, the ad hoc promotions must be regularized, with seniority counted from the date of assumption of 2025.10.16 RAVI KANOJIA17:34:05 +05'30' Item No.22/C-1 35 OA No.3019/2016 charge, consistent with Supreme Court and High Courts precedents as noted above.
15. So far as Issue (2) mentioned in para 10 above is concerned, we observe that the applicants continuously served as EE (C) for over 15- 20 years but were denied consideration for promotion to SE (C), Addl. CE (C), and CE (C) due to non-regularization of their EE (C) promotions. Vacancies existed, and their representations were repeatedly ignored. The DoP&T guidelines and OMs (1989, 1998, 2000, and 2011) explicitly mandate that timely DPCs are to be held, and administrative delays cannot deprive eligible officers of their promotion rights. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sunil Kumar Mehra v. MCD (supra) and the Hon'ble Manipur High Court in Sushil Sharma v. State of Manipur (supra) have consistently held that officers must be considered for further promotions from the due date once they become eligible, notwithstanding any administrative delays. It is profitable to refer the relevant portion of the Order/Judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sunil Kumar Mehra (supra), which reads as under:-
"31. It is well settled legal position that where an incumbent is initially appointed to a post as per the applicable Rules, whether on ad- hoc basis or otherwise and is later on regularly promoted to said post, his seniority to the said post has to be reckoned from the date of his initial appointment and not from the date of his confirmation/regularization. However, where the initial appointment is not made as per the Rules but is only a stop-gap arrangement, the period of officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for determination of seniority.
32. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the ad-hoc promotion of the petitioner to the post of Additional Town Planner was in terms of the applicable Recruitment Rules. In view of above legal position, it has to be held that the seniority of the petitioner on the post of Additional Town Planner has to be reckoned from the date of his ad-hoc appointment to the said post. As a necessary corollary thereof, the ad-
2025.10.16
RAVI KANOJIA17:34:05
+05'30'
Item No.22/C-1 36 OA No.3019/2016
hoc service rendered by the petitioner on the post of Additional Town Planner shall be counted towards his regular service on the said post."
15.1 In the case of Sushil Sharma (supra), the Hon'ble Manipur High Court held as under:-
"33. It is also the fact that in case the DPC was held in 2014-2015, the Petitioner would have completed 5 years of regular service and, thus, would have become eligible for being considered for the next promotion i.e. to the post of MPS Grade-I. As per the version of the respondents themselves, there are sufficient number of vacancies in the grade of MPS-II with effect from 2011 onwards.
34. Due to the arbitrary exercise of power in not holding the DPC on time by the authority, admittedly, the petitioner, will retire below one rank than the one which ought to have been made available during his long career in the Department due to want of qualifying service. Therefore, in the interest of justice and in equity to direct the respondents authorities to give notional promotion to the petitioner with effect from 2014-2015."
15.2 We find that the applicants have suffered prejudice due to NDMC's failure to hold timely DPCs. Denial of regularization effectively denied them seniority and further promotions. Considering judicial precedents and continuous service, applicants have a legitimate right to regularization, which is essential to compute eligibility for higher grades. Accordingly, we observe that the applicants are entitled to seniority and consequential promotions to SE (C), Addl. CE (C), and CE (C) posts as per RRs.
16. So far as the issue (3), as mentioned in para 10 above, is concerned, we observe that NDMC repeatedly corresponded with UPSC, but the process stalled due to procedural clarifications, administrative inaction, and letter delays spanning years (2008- 2016). It is trite law that administrative delays cannot defeat substantive rights as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in E.P. 2025.10.16 RAVI KANOJIA17:34:05 +05'30' Item No.22/C-1 37 OA No.3019/2016 Royappa (supra), N.R. Banerjee (supra) as well as DoP&T OMs mandate timely DPCs, with accountability in case of delays. As such, we observe that the delay in convening DPCs was procedural and administrative, not attributable to the applicants. As such we do not agree with the contention of the respondent nos.1 and 2 that delay in convening DPC was attributable to the applicants. Therefore, the principle of non-prejudice due to administrative delay applies. In view of the above, we observe that NDMC's failure to hold timely DPCs cannot bar regularization of applicants' promotions or their eligibility for future promotions. We are, therefore, of the firm opinion that the respondents' action in continuing to describe the applicants' promotions as ad hoc, and in denying them consequential benefits of seniority and further promotion, is unsustainable in law.
17. It is also well-settled in service jurisprudence that money is not the only motivator for a government servant. Employees value recognition of their service, career progression, dignity of position, and parity with similarly placed colleagues as much as, if not more than, mere monetary benefits. The conferment of a higher scale or the release of arrears of pay does not, by itself, compensate for the denial of seniority, promotional avenues, and the status that flows from being treated as a regularly appointed officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases, including in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association (supra), as well as recently in the Constitution Bench judgment of Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors., reported in (2025) 2 SCC 1, and in Partha Das 2025.10.16 RAVI KANOJIA17:34:05 +05'30' Item No.22/C-1 38 OA No.3019/2016 & Ors. v. Sujan Roy & Ors., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1844, has recognized that legitimate expectation, fairness in action, and equality of treatment under Articles 14 and 16 are fundamental to public service. A mere financial adjustment cannot erase the stigma of being labelled as 'ad hoc' or 'irregular' when the individual has fulfilled all eligibility criteria, occupied substantive vacancies, and discharged the full responsibilities of the promotional post for about decades. Furthermore, career advancement carries with it intangible yet significant benefits such as professional recognition, authority to discharge higher responsibilities, enhanced opportunities for future promotion, and social standing within the service. These intrinsic aspects of public employment cannot be reduced to a monetary calculation. Accordingly, the contention of the respondents that the grant of a higher scale or financial upgradation is sufficient ignores the constitutional and legal principle that equality and fairness in service conditions encompass not only pay but also seniority, promotion, and status. In other words, the applicants' grievance is not merely pecuniary, it goes to the core of their service rights and legitimate expectations, which are protected under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. At this stage, we observe that although, as per the averments of the respondents, the applicants were granted DTL scales and, consequent upon the change in the Grade Pay structure, the post of AE was elevated to a Category 'A' post, their ad hoc promotions were never regularised through a duly convened DPC. It is evident that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 continued to utilise the services of the 2025.10.16 RAVI KANOJIA17:34:05 +05'30' Item No.22/C-1 39 OA No.3019/2016 applicants on an ad hoc basis for a prolonged period of 15-20 years, without taking steps to regularise their promotions through the prescribed procedure of a regular DPC.
18. This Tribunal has repeatedly observed that service matters concerning the engineering staff of the respondents' organisation are being dealt with in a most lackadaisical manner, thereby giving rise to avoidable litigation. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are, therefore, directed to bestow their personal attention towards resolving the grievances of the aforesaid engineering staff, keeping in view the settled principles of service jurisprudence as well as the applicable departmental rules and regulations.
19. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, for the foregoing reasons and guiding dicta of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Courts, as noted above, the present OA is allowed in the following terms:
(i) The respondents are directed to treat the applicants' promotions to the post of EE (C) as regular from the respective dates of their ad hoc promotions;
(ii) The respondents shall convene year-wise review DPCs to consider the case of the applicants for promotion to the higher posts, i.e., SE (C), Additional Chief Engineer (C), and Chief Engineer (C), subject to their fulfilling the eligibility conditions prescribed under the relevant Recruitment Regulations prevailing at that point in time, and subject 2025.10.16 RAVI KANOJIA17:34:05 +05'30' Item No.22/C-1 40 OA No.3019/2016 further to the availability of vacancies in the respective years.
In the event, the applicants are found fit for promotion to the aforesaid posts, their pay shall be fixed on a notional basis from the due dates and actual benefits to accrue from the date of assumption of charge, if they are in service as on today.
(iii) The above exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
20. Pending MA(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
21. There shall be no order as to costs.
(RajinderKashyap) (Justice Ranjit More)
Member (A) Chairman
/ravi/
2025.10.16
RAVI KANOJIA17:34:05
+05'30'