Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Raj Bahadur vs M/O Finance on 9 April, 2026
1
Item No. 78/Court-4
O.A. No. 600/2025
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 600/2025
Reserved on : 11.03.2026
Pronounced on: 09.04.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
Raj Bahadur, S/o Ram Swaroop
Aged about 73 years
Income Tax Officer (Retired)
From - Income Tax Office, Dehradun
R/o C/o Sh. Sushil Khajuria
3/3, O Block, Sector 13, R.K. Puram
New Delhi-110066
Permanent Address:-
K-3311, Shastri Nagar
Meerut, Uttar Pradesh.
... Applicant
(Applicant in person)
Versus
1. The Union of India
Through the Secretary
Ministry of Finance
North Block, Central Secretariat
New Delhi-110001.
2. The Central Board of Direct Taxes
Through its Chairman
North Block, Central Secretariat
New Delhi-110001.
3. Union Public Service Commission
Through its Secretary
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road
New Delhi-110069.
... Respondents
(By Advocates: Mr. Hanu Bhaskar for R-1 & 2 and
Mr. Vardhman Kaushik with Ms. Theresa
Shaji for R-3)
Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN
Date: 2026.04.09 17:20:42+05'30'
2
Item No. 78/Court-4
O.A. No. 600/2025
ORDER
By Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A) The present O.A. has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief(s):-
"(a) It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to order Directly for Promotion of the Applicant to the post of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax for the vacancy year 2001-02 with all the consequential promotions on the further higher posts notionally w.e.f. 07.11.2001 alongwith entire monetary benefits till the date of Retirement i.e. upto 31.03.2012 as arrears of the pay and allowances and further more, the monetary benefits in Pension's arrears and increments etc. as per laws and rules. This relief is sought in the light of the law contained in the statutory Rule 18.3, a sub rule of the statutory Rule 18 of The guidelines dated 10.4.1989 for DPCs which have been annexed with this O.A. As its Annexure No. A-5 and also in the light of the law established by the co-
ordinet Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the O.A. No. 640/2009, which was approved by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi also on 17.03.2010 in the Writ WP(C) No. 1829/2010 titled as Union of India vs. B.P. Sinha & Anr. and also, as per the Law established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "N.A. Khan vs. Union of India & Ors." on 31.03.2009 Or otherwise This Hon'ble Court may kindly order the Respondents to promote me notionally as the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (i.e. ACIT in short) for the vacancy year or panel year 2001-02 by restoring my grading as "Very Good", which was awarded by the original DPC held on 3rd to 6th October 2001, for the Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2026.04.09 17:20:42+05'30' 3 Item No. 78/Court-4 O.A. No. 600/2025 vacancy/panel year 2002-02, with all the consequential benefits i.e. promotional and monetary.
(b) The Respondents may kindly be ordered to pay all the consequential monetary/financial benefits i.e. the arrears of the Pay and allowances with arrears w.e.f. 07.11.2001 i.e. w.e.f. vacancy year 2001-02. This relief may kindly be treated as the part and parcel of the Relief which is mentioned in the above noted serial no (a).
(c) And thus allow the present OA in toto in favour of the Applicant and quash and set aside the order dated 29.10.2020 passed by the Review DPC dated 29.10.2020/Union of India for the vacancy year/panel year of 2001-02, because they i.e. the review DPC dated 29.10.2020 had downgraded my grading for the vacancy year 2001-02 totally unlawfully by transgressing the instructions or guidelines, which were required to be followed by the Government itself certainly and positively.
(d) Pass any such others orders as the Court may deem fit in the light of above mentioned law, facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The brief facts of the case as narrated by the applicant, who appeared in person, are that:
2.1 The applicant earlier approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 2218/2013, which was allowed vide Order dated 17.12.2015 with the following directions:-
"We, therefore, allow the instant OA and direct the respondents to convene another review DPC whereby the case of the applicant for promotion to the post of ITO for 1992 be considered as if there were no offending ACRs for the years 1985-86 and 1986-87 having been deleted from the date they were recorded and the same cannot treated to be deleted from the date of the order of deletion. The respondents are further directed to complete the exercise, as ordained Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2026.04.09 17:20:42+05'30' 4 Item No. 78/Court-4 O.A. No. 600/2025 above, within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order."
2.2 When the aforesaid Order was not implemented, the applicant filed CP No.509/2016. During pendency of the same, the respondents passed an order dated 11.11.2016 granting promotion to the applicant as Income Tax Officer w.e.f. 28.03.1990. However, the Respondents denied arrears of pay on the ground that he had not actually performed the duties of the promotional post. According to him, this action is arbitrary and contrary to settled law, as it is well established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the principle of "No Work No Pay" is not applicable where the employee was wrongfully denied promotion due to the fault of the employer. The applicant was deprived of the opportunity to discharge duties of the higher post solely because of the Respondents' unlawful actions.
2.3 Despite the fact that on 15.12.2016 when it was the stand taken by the counsel for the Respondents that the order dated 17.12.2015 had been implemented only in part, this Tribunal granted two weeks' time to do further exercise; and in terms of CBDT letter dated 19.01.2017, the Respondents had decided to seek further time from the Tribunal to take necessary steps to implement its order; on 23.01.2017, the Tribunal viewed that its order stood Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2026.04.09 17:20:42+05'30' 5 Item No. 78/Court-4 O.A. No. 600/2025 implemented on 11.11.2016 only by passing of an order granting promotion in 1990 without any effect of the relief so granted as directed by the Tribunal in terms of the further promotions and the payments of arrears of Pay and allowances.
2.4 The applicant filed a review for the error apparent on the face of record through RA No. 72/2017, which was dismissed on 14.03.2017 without issuance of any notice by simply stating that Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over its own order.
2.5 Aggrieved by the partial implementation and subsequent orders of the Tribunal dated 23.01.2017 and 14.03.2017, the applicant filed W.P.(C) No. 9724/2017 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 12.12.2024 granted liberty to him to approach this Tribunal by filing a fresh O.A. raising grievances regarding further promotions, including promotion to the grade of ACIT and the decision of the Review DPC dated 29.10.2020. The Hon'ble High Court further directed that if such OA is filed within the stipulated period, the Respondents shall not raise the plea of limitation and requested this Tribunal to decide the matter expeditiously.
Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2026.04.09 17:20:42+05'30' 6 Item No. 78/Court-4 O.A. No. 600/2025 2.6 Pursuant to the directions and strict monitoring by the Hon'ble High Court, the Respondents held a Review DPC on 29.10.2020. However, the said Review DPC acted beyond its jurisdiction and in a prejudiced manner by downgrading the applicant's ACR grading from "Very Good" to "Good" for the vacancy/panel year 2001-02. It is specifically mentioned that the original DPC held in October 2001 had assessed the applicant as "Very Good."
2.7 It is submitted that the scope of the powers and functions of Review DPC is very limited and narrow as per the law of the Government, i.e. the Government's O.M. dated 10.04.1989. He highlighted Rule 18.3 of the ibid OM, which clearly provides as under:
"18.3 A Review DPC is required to consider the case again with reference to the technical or factual mistakes that took place earlier and it should neither change the grading of an officer without any valid reason (which should be recorded) nor change the zone of consideration nor take into account any increase in the number of vacancies which might have occurred subsequently".
2.8 He argued that the Review DPC cannot change the grading of an officer without valid reasons, nor can it alter the zone of consideration or consider subsequent vacancies. Thus, the action of the Review DPC is in violation of Rule 18.3 and deserves to be quashed.
Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2026.04.09 17:20:42+05'30' 7 Item No. 78/Court-4 O.A. No. 600/2025 2.9 It is also submitted that the applicant became aware of the Review DPC proceedings only when the Respondents filed their compliance affidavit before the Hon'ble High Court on 21.12.2020. Thereafter, he obtained the Minutes of the Review DPC through the RTI Act, which revealed the unlawful downgrading of his ACR grading. Therefore, he filed the present O.A. in compliance with the liberty granted by the Hon'ble High Court.
2.10 He has also placed reliance on the Order passed by coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 640/2009 titled B.P. Sinha and Anr. vs Union of India, the operative part of which reads as under:
"If perhaps, it would have been a simple case of the review DPC and taking into consideration the relevant factors, we might have remitted the matter once again to the review DPC to to re-consider the matter, but in the present case, however, as mentioned above, the review DPC has changed the grading of the applicant as given by the original DPC for the year 1999-2000, for which there was no scope as per instant instructions.
9. Finding considerable merit in this Application, we allow the same. Consequently, we direct the respondents to consider promoting the applicant from the date his juniors were promoted, as fully indicated above. There shall, however, be no order as to costs."
The aforesaid Order was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court in WP(C) No. 1829/2010 vide Judgment dated 17.03.2010. He has also placed reliance on the law established by the Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2026.04.09 17:20:42+05'30' 8 Item No. 78/Court-4 O.A. No. 600/2025 Apex Court in the case of N.A. Khan vs Union of India & Ors. dated 31.03.2009.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 opposed the O.A. and submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in WP (C) No. 9724/2017 filed by the applicant vide order dated 10.12.2019 directed the respondents to submit its proposal to UPSC for convening a review DPC for vacancy year 2000-01 and 2001-02 with reference to promotion of his immediate junior Sh. A.R. Gautam. The Review DPC duly assessed the applicant as "Good" in accordance with the provisions of DoPT OM dated 10.04.1989, whereas candidates graded as "Very Good" were available and empanelled for the relevant vacancy years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. Accordingly, the applicant could not be accommodated due to insufficiency of vacancies, and consequently, the Committee observed that the panel already drawn by the Original DPC required no alteration.
3.1 The Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 12.12.2024 by observing that "We cannot, however, extend the jurisdiction of this Court to a point where we would now examine the consideration of the petitioner by the review DPC for the post of ACIT, as per the directions issued by Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2026.04.09 17:20:42+05'30' 9 Item No. 78/Court-4 O.A. No. 600/2025 this Court in its order dated 10 December 2019, and the entitlement of the petitioner to such promotion. Assuming that there was any illegality in the said consideration, or in the downgrading of the ACRs of the petitioner, that clearly constitutes an entirely new and independent cause of action, which the petitioner would have to agitate before the Tribunal in the first instance", disposed off the Writ Petition with liberty reserved to the applicant to file an OA before the Tribunal to raise any grievance relating to further promotions, including the promotion to the grade of ACIT, effected during the pendency of the writ proceedings, as also to challenge the decision of the Review OPC held on 29.10.2020, and any alleged downgrading of his ACRs during the interregnum. In pursuance of the said liberty, the present OA has been filed by the applicant. 3.2 It is further submitted that the Review DPC proceedings were conducted strictly in accordance with applicable rules and guidelines, and no illegality or arbitrariness can be attributed. The service record of the applicant reflects serious misconduct. A disciplinary proceeding initiated in 2003 culminated in the imposition of a major penalty vide order dated 30.09.2005, reducing his pay for a period of five years. This penalty forms part of his service record and was rightly considered in service Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2026.04.09 17:20:42+05'30' 10 Item No. 78/Court-4 O.A. No. 600/2025 assessments. Furthermore, the applicant was caught red- handed by the CBI in 2010 while accepting illegal gratification and was subsequently convicted by the competent Court, i.e. the Hon'ble Special Judge (ACB), CBI, Dehradun, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 vide Order dated 09.06.2017, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years along with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, with an additional imprisonment of three months imposed in case of default of fine payment. Aggrieved by the Special Judge's order, the applicant filed an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, which granted him bail on 28.08.2017 but did not overturn the conviction or sentence.
3.3 In view of the said conviction, proceedings under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 were initiated vide Memorandum dated 13.12.2019 proposing permanent withholding of the applicant's pension, which was duly served on him on 13.01.2020. Ultimately, the proceedings were concluded by an order passed under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 by which the Hon'ble President permanently withheld his pension. The said action was taken in accordance with law and after following due process.
Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2026.04.09 17:20:42+05'30' 11 Item No. 78/Court-4 O.A. No. 600/2025 3.4 In light of the above, it is submitted that the Review DPC was well within its right to grade the applicant in accordance with rules and the applicant's adverse service record, including penalties and conviction, disentitles him from any equitable relief. The O.A. is, therefore, liable to be dismissed in view of DoPT's OM dated 15.11.2018 which provides for promotion of Govt. servants found fit by Review DPC after retirement. The applicant is not entitled to be promoted, and accordingly, no arrears are admissible to him.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 - UPSC submitted that the applicant has challenged the decision of Review DPC dated 29.10.2020 which acted in compliance of order dated 10.12.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P(C) 9724 of 2017. The Review DPC reassessed the service records of the applicant for promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT) for the year 2000-01 with respect to his immediate junior officer. Upon examination of reckonable ACRs for 5 years, i.e. for the years 1994-95 to 1998- 999, the Review DPC graded him as 'Good'. Further, the applicant was considered for the subsequent vacancy year of 2001-02, and 5 years ACRs for reckonable period were considered, i.e. from 1995-96 to 1999-2000, and he was graded as 'Good'. On the basis of Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2026.04.09 17:20:42+05'30' 12 Item No. 78/Court-4 O.A. No. 600/2025 above final grading 'Good', the applicant could not find place in either of the panel years, i.e. 2000-01 and 2001-02, for want of sufficient number of vacancies as officers with overall final grading of 'Very Good' were available and empanelled for the vacancy years 2000-01 and 2001-02. Hence, Review DPC did not recommend his name for promotion against the panels drawn by the original DPC. 4.1 The detailed assessment done by the Original DPC for the year 2001-02 is not available with the Commission as the same was weeded out in the year 2016. However, it is reiterated that the Review DPC held on 29.10.2020 made independent assessment for the vacancy years 2000-01 and 2001-02 after examining his reckonable ACRs of 05 years, as mentioned above. The Review DPC assessed his ACRs as under:-
Assessment for the year 2000-01 1994- 1995- 1996- 1997- 1998- Overall 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Assessment Good VG Good Good Avg Good Assessment for the year 2001-02 1995- 1996- 1997- 1998- 1999- Overall 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Assessment VG Good Good Avg Avg Good From the above grading awarded by the Review DPC, it is evident that as the applicant had earned only one 'Very Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2026.04.09 17:20:42+05'30' 13 Item No. 78/Court-4 O.A. No. 600/2025 Good' out of five APARs, therefore, overall grading of 'Good' is justified.
4.2 It is further submitted that the Review DPC was constituted pursuant to the directions of this Hon'ble Tribunal vide order dated 17.12.2015 and the order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 10.12.2019, the Committee undertook the exercise strictly in compliance with the said judicial directions. Thus, the proceedings of the Review DPC were conducted in accordance with the directions of this Hon'ble Tribunal and on the basis of the service records of the officers concerned, and the Review DPC did not act with any mala fide intent while reassessing the case of the applicant, and acted strictly in accordance with the OM dated 10.04.1989 which governs the procedure and principles for consideration of officers by the Departmental Promotion Committee.
4.3 He also submitted that Guideline 6.1.2 clearly states that DPCs enjoy full discretion to devise their own methods and procedures for objective assessment of the suitability of candidate who are to be considered by them. Further, as per Guideline 6.2.1(e), DPC should not be guided merely by the overall grading, if any, that may be recorded in the CRs but should make its own assessment on the basis of the entries in the CRs. On the bases of CRs, the Review DPC reassessed Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2026.04.09 17:20:42+05'30' 14 Item No. 78/Court-4 O.A. No. 600/2025 the service records and ACRs of the applicant and rightly assessed his performance as "Good."
4.4 He contended that Rule 18.3 of the OM dated 10.04.1989 requires that the Review DPC record reasons while reassessing a case. In the present case, the Review DPC has duly recorded the reasons for assessing the applicant as "Good", which is based on the relevant ACRs considered for the vacancy years in question. Thus, the Review DPC evaluated the applicant's performance on the basis of the relevant ACRs and in accordance with the applicable OM and the assessment arrived at by the Committee represents a fair, objective and rule-compliant determination, which warrants no interference by this Hon'ble Tribunal. Further, the Hon'ble High Court in its order dated 29.05.2024 gone through the original ACRs and observed that applicant has not been graded as 'very good' in any of the ACRs other than 1995-96. Therefore, he could not be graded as 'very good' by Review DPC. 4.5 He further contended that the scope of judicial interference with the decisions of the DPC is extremely limited, being a duly constituted expert body entrusted with the task of assessing the comparative merit and suitability of officers for promotion on the basis of their service records and ACR gradings. It is well settled that Courts/Tribunals Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2026.04.09 17:20:42+05'30' 15 Item No. 78/Court-4 O.A. No. 600/2025 cannot re-evaluate or re-assess the imperative merit determined by the DPC, nor can they substitute their own assessment for that of the Committee. Interference is warranted only in exceptional circumstances, such as where the decision of the DPC is shown to be vitiated by mala fides, procedural irregularity, or violation of statutory rules.
In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the following case laws:
(i) Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. vs S.P. Nayyar, (2014) 14 SCC 370, highlighting paras 11 and 14, which read as under:
"11. It is settled that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit in appeal over the assessment made by the DPC. If the assessment made by the DPC is perverse or is not based on record or proper record has not been considered by the DPC, it is always open to the High Court under Article 226 4 of the Constitution to remit the matter back to the DPC for recommendation, but the High Court cannot assess the merit on its own on perusal of the service record of one or the other employee.
xxx xxx xxx
14. The Departmental Promotion Committee consists of a Chairman and the members. Even if bias is alleged against the Chairperson, it cannot be presumed that all the members of the Committee were biased. No ground has been made out by the respondent to show as to why the assessment made by the DPC is not to be accepted. The High Court failed to notice the aforesaid fact and wrongly discarded the assessment made by the DPC."
(ii) In M.V. Thimmaiah vs UPSC, (2008) 2 SCC 119, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN
Date: 2026.04.09 17:20:42+05'30' 16 Item No. 78/Court-4 O.A. No. 600/2025 "21.Normally, the recommendations of the Selection Committee cannot be challenged except on the ground of mala fides or serious violation of the statutory rules.
The courts cannot sit as an appellate authority to examine recommendations of the Selection Committee like a court of appeal. This discretion has been given to the Selection Committee only and courts rarely sit as a court of appeal to examine selection of candidates nor is it the business of the court to examine each candidate and record its opinion.
xxx xxx xxx
30. The tribunal cannot sit as an appellate authority to call for the personal records and constitute the selection committee to undertake this exercise. This power is not given to the tribunal and it should be clearly understood the assessment for the selection committee is not subject to appeal either before the Tribunal or by the courts. One has to give credit to the Selection Committee for making their assessment and it is not subject to appeal. Taking overall view of ACRs of candidates, one may be held to be very good and another may be held to be good. If this type of interference is permitted then it would virtually amount that Tribunals and High Courts have started sitting as Selection Committee or act as an Appellate Authority over the selection."
(iii) Similarly, in the case of Baidyanath Yadav vs Aditya Narayan Roy and Ors., MANU/SC/1586/2019, it has been held as under:
"5.2 The Selection Committee consists of experts in the field. It is presided over by the Chairman or a Member of UPSC and is duly represented by the officers of the Central Government and the State Government who have expertise in the matter. In our considered opinion, when a High-Level Committee or an expert body has considered the merit of each of the candidates, assessed the grading and considered their cases for promotion, it is not open to CAT and the High Court to sit over the assessment made by the Selection Committee as an appellate authority. The question as to how the categories are assessed in light of the relevant records and as to what norms apply in making the assessment, is exclusively to be determined by the Selection Committee. Since the jurisdiction to make selection as per law is vested in the Selection Committee and as the Selection Committee members have got expertise in the matter, it is not open for the courts generally to interfere in such matters except in cases where the Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2026.04.09 17:20:42+05'30' 17 Item No. 78/Court-4 O.A. No. 600/2025 process of assessment is vitiated either on the ground of bias, mala fides or arbitrariness. It is not the function of the court to hear the matters before it treating them as appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committee and to scrutinise the relative merit of the candidates. The question as to whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted expert body i.e. the Selection Committee. The courts have very limited scope of judicial review in such matters."
4.6 In view of above settled position of law, when the courts are reluctant to interfere with the findings of DPC, the findings of Review DPC are also of similar nature and do not warrant interference by the Hon'ble Court in the usual course.
5. In rejoinder to the submissions of Respondents No. 1 and 2, the applicant stated that his name was duly approved/empanelled for promotion to the post of ACIT for the vacancy year 2002-03 by the DPC held on 28th-29th October 2003. However, the then Disciplinary Authority (DA), with the intent to obstruct his promotion, issued a charge sheet dated 04.11.2003, which was unlawfully served by affixture on his locked residence while he was on sanctioned leave and out of station. The Inquiring Authority, appointed without proper authorization, could prove only part of the charge, yet a major penalty of reduction of four increments was imposed and his promotion was withheld. It is alleged that the entire action was driven by bias and conspiracy of the then DA, who also got him implicated in a Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2026.04.09 17:20:42+05'30' 18 Item No. 78/Court-4 O.A. No. 600/2025 CBI case. Although no disproportionate assets were found, he was sentenced to four years' imprisonment, against which his appeal is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand. The proceedings under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules resulted in withholding of 100% pension. 5.1 In another rejoinder, the applicant denied the submissions of the UPSC and contended that the Review DPC acted beyond its jurisdiction under Rule 18.3 of the O.M. dated 10.04.1989 by downgrading his 'Very Good' grading awarded by the Original DPC in October 2001 to 'Good' without assigning any reasons. Relying on the judgment in N.A. Khan's case, he argued that even a 'Good' grading meets the benchmark for promotion in the 2nd vacancy year if vacancies exist. Since more than 50 vacancies were available in his category, i.e. SC, the respondents' plea of non-promotion due to limited vacancies is untenable. Accordingly, he reiterated his claim for retrospective promotion to ACIT w.e.f. 07.11.2001, i.e., the date his junior was promoted, along with all consequential benefits, i.e. promotional as well as monetary. He has also placed reliance on the following case laws:
(i) Judgment in K. Samba Moorthy vs Sanjeev Chadha & Ors., wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court discarded the decision rendered in Government of West Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2026.04.09 17:20:42+05'30' 19 Item No. 78/Court-4 O.A. No. 600/2025 Bengal & Ors. vs Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors. dated 27.11.2024 relied upon by the respondents while denying notional promotion and financial benefits, and vide Order dated 27.01.2025 held as under:
27. We also do not find the judgment in Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra) to be applicable. Unlike in the present case, the result of the promotion was not kept in abeyance in that case. There, before the approval for promotion could be received to the post of Chief Scientific Officer, the incumbent had superannuated. In this case, in 2012, the appellant assumed the promoted post. The only question was about giving him the benefit from 28.07.2001, when he was entitled. The argument that granting relief to the appellant would tantamount to travelling beyond the main order, does not carry weight insofar as granting the appellant promotion from Scale-II to Scale-III with effect from 28.07.2001."
Moreover, the decision in Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra) was non-reportable and such decisions are primarily binding on the specific parties involved and no precedent value.
(ii) Judgment of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal Mumbai Bench at Aurangabad in O.A. No. 315/2019 in the case of Jeevan vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. as regards deemed date of promotion (para 20).
(iii) In Union of India vs Pirthwi Singh & Ors., dated 24.04.2018, wherein the Apex Court have rightly said about the Union of India as under:
"17. To say the least, this is an extremely unfortunate situation of unnecessary and avoidable burdening of this Court through frivolous litigation which calls for yet Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2026.04.09 17:20:42+05'30' 20 Item No. 78/Court-4 O.A. No. 600/2025 another reminder through the imposition of costs on the Union of India while dismissing this appeal. We hope that someday some sense, if not better sense, will prevail on the Union of India with regard to the formulation of a realistic and meaningful National Litigation Policy and what it calls 'ease of doing business', which can, if faithfully implemented benefit litigants across the country.
18. The appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs.1,00,000/- as before to be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four C.A. No. ______of 2018 (@Diary No. 8754 of 2018) weeks from today for utilization for juvenile justice issues. Pending I.As.are also disposed of."
He has also placed reliance upon several other judgments regarding judicial review of DPC proceedings.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings/judgments placed on record as well as written synopsis filed by them.
7. After carefully gone through the submissions made by the respective parties, the following issues arise for consideration:
(i) whether the Review DPC acted beyond its jurisdiction in reassessing the applicant's grading;
(ii) whether the downgrading from "Very Good" to "Good" is arbitrary or in violation of applicable rules; and
(iii) whether the applicant is entitled to retrospective promotion and consequential benefits. Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN
Date: 2026.04.09 17:20:42+05'30' 21 Item No. 78/Court-4 O.A. No. 600/2025
8. In support of his contentions, the applicant has heavily relied upon statutory Rule 18.3 of OM dated 10.04.1989 which provides that a Review DPC is required to reconsider the case with reference to technical or factual mistakes in the earlier DPC and should not change the grading of an officer without valid reasons, nor alter the zone of consideration or consider subsequent vacancies. The rule thus imposes two key limitations:
(1) The Review DPC must confine itself to correcting identified errors;
(2) Any change in grading must be supported by valid and recorded reasons.
However, at the same time, the rule does not expressly prohibit a Review DPC from making a fresh or independent assessment where the earlier process is found to be vitiated or incomplete. This position is further reinforced by other provisions of the said O.M., which empower the DPC to assess suitability on the basis of the entries in ACRs rather than merely the overall grading. Therefore, Rule 18.3 cannot be read in isolation to restrict the Review DPC to a mechanical exercise. It permits reassessment, provided that the reassessment is based on record (ACRs) and the conclusion is supported by discernible reasons. Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2026.04.09 17:20:42+05'30' 22 Item No. 78/Court-4 O.A. No. 600/2025
9. In the present case, the Review DPC has considered the relevant five year ACRs and arrived at an overall grading of 'Good'. The grading reflects the distribution of entries, wherein only one year carried a 'Very Good' grading and the remaining were 'Good' or 'Average'. Thus, the change in grading is not arbitrary but flows from objective evaluation of the underlying record, which constitutes a valid reason within the meaning of Rule 18.3. Furthermore, the applicant is unable to demonstrate that the Review DPC ignored relevant material, or considered extraneous factors, or altered the zone of consideration or vacancy position. Hence, no violation of Rule 18.3 is established.
10. Moreover, the original DPC records are not available, having been weeded out. Therefore, the claim of the applicant regarding earlier grading cannot be conclusively established.
11. We have also gone through various case laws relied upon by the applicant. However, it is observed that the decision in N.A. Khan (supra) is applicable only where arbitrariness or procedural violation is shown. No such violation is established in the present case. Further, the decision rendered in the case is B.P. Sinha (supra) is distinguishable on facts, as in that case grading was altered without basis, whereas in the present case reassessment is Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2026.04.09 17:20:42+05'30' 23 Item No. 78/Court-4 O.A. No. 600/2025 based on ACR entries. Another judgment in K. Samba Moorthy (supra) pertains to delayed promotion despite fitness, but the same is not applicable where the candidate is not found fit by the Review DPC, whereas the decision in Pirthwi Singh (supra) only relates to litigation policy and not relevant to DPC assessment, and hence, the judgments relied upon will provide no help to advance the applicant's case.
12. It is a settled principle that the scope of judicial review in matters relating to DPC proceedings is limited. Courts and Tribunals cannot sit in appeal over the assessment made by an expert body, such as DPC/Review DPC, unless the decision is vitiated by mala fides, arbitrariness, or violation of statutory provisions.
13. It is further noted that promotion is contingent upon comparative merit and availability of vacancies. In the present case, the final grading is based on record/ACRs and thus cannot be interfered with; and the candidates with higher grading of "Very Good" were available and empanelled, and therefore, the applicant could not be accommodated.
14. In light of the foregoing discussion, no arbitrariness or procedural irregularity is found in the decision of the Review Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2026.04.09 17:20:42+05'30' 24 Item No. 78/Court-4 O.A. No. 600/2025 DPC. The applicant has failed to establish any illegality, mala fide, or arbitrariness in the impugned proceedings.
15. Accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed being bereft of merits. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
16. Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Dr. Anand S. Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/jyoti/
Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN
Date: 2026.04.09 17:20:42+05'30'