Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Nishi Nigam vs D/O Post on 11 May, 2026
6';\nis!r;,/Po
'v
9II fg/
c mun¢\"\'
II
Wu aw'
1 OA No.550/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.550 OF 2017
Dated this Monday, the 11th day of May, 2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. RANJANA SHAHI, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. LOK RANJAN, MEMBER (A)
Nishi Nigam W/o Deepak Kumar,
Aged about 59 years,
R/o B-15, in front of P&T Quarters,
Shastri Nagar, Jaipur,
Presently working as Accountant
in the O/o Head Record Office,
RMS Baria House, Jaipur. - Applicant
(By Advocate Shri B.K.Jatti)
Versus
1. Union of India,
through the Secretary to the Govt. of India,
Department of Post, Dak Bhawan,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
2. Chief Post Master General,
Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur.
3. Sr. Superintendent Railway Mail Service,
JP Dn. Jaipur Baria House,
Jaipur - 6.
4. Head Record Officer,
RMS Baria House,
Jaipur-6. - Respondents
(By Advocate Shri Kinshuk Jain)
Reserved on 05.05.2026
Pronounced on 11.05.2026
Khushboo
Mittal Gupta
Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=
6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone=
8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c75
9b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=
870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12
c639, CN=Khushboo Mittal Gupta
Reason: your signing reason here
Location: your signing location here
Date: 2026.05.15 17:00:18+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0
Page 1 of 13
5:507/ wv
_WQWF09
)2?__ _
2 OA No.550/2017
ORDER
Per: Ms. Ranjana Shahi, Member (J)
The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
"8.1. That by a suitable writ/order or the direction the impugned order dated 18.04.2017 and 26.04.2017 vide annexure A/1 and A/2 be quashed and set aside.
8.2. That as per the order dated 23.02.2017 the candidates on S.No.57 have been allowed grace marks to pass the exam though that candidate obtained only 253 marks in the exam of 29-30.12.2012. Therefore applicant also be allowed for grace marks to clear the exam of 2012.
8.3. The applicant has secured 94 marks in VI paper and in IX paper-100 therefore there is exemption to the applicant in the above papers.
8.4. That in the exam of where the applicant treated over age of 2012 the applicant has secured in VII paper-20 marks and in 8th paper 61 marks. Total marks of the applicant are as follows :
Paper - VI 94 Paper - IX 100 Paper - VII 20 Paper - VIII 61 Total 275
(a) Total marks have been obtained by the applicant
- 275.
(b) It is humbly prayed that as per order dated 23.02.2017 grace marks have been allowed to the candidate of 2012 on S.No.57 who secured 253 marks. Therefore grace marks be allowed to the applicant and the applicant do not be treated as over age.
8.5. It is humbly prayed that by allowing the grace marks as per over dated 23.02.2017 the applicant be declared successful in the exam of 29.12.2012 and 30.12.2012 SLDCE-2012.
8.6. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Bench deems fit."
Khushboo Mittal Gupta Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone= 8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c75 9b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12 c639, CN=Khushboo Mittal Gupta Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.05.15 17:00:18+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 Page 2 of 13 my?_\ 'WflW7we)%_ _ _ _ D5§_ 3 OA No.550/2017
2. It is the case of the applicant that she was working as Accountant in the Office of the Head Record Officer, RMS JP Division, Jaipur. The Department of Posts conducted the SLDCE examination for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Accounts Officer (90% Departmental Examination Quota) for the year 2012.
Pursuant to the order passed by this Bench of the Tribunal, the applicant was allowed to appear in the said examination held from 29.12.2012 to 30.12.2012.
3. It has further been averred that the Supplementary result was declared on 23.02.2017, whereupon, the applicant claims that she came to know that certain candidates, who had earlier failed, found place in the said supplementary result on the basis of grace marks granted to them. As such, the applicant also submitted an application seeking grant of similar grace marks, as had been extended to other similarly situated candidates like her, however, since her request was not acceded to by the respondents, she was constrained to file the present Original Application.
4. At the very outset, the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present Original Application. It has been pointed out on behalf of the respondents that at the time of filing of the present Original Application in the year 2017, the applicant had already attained the age of 59 years and subsequently retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2017.
Khushboo Mittal Gupta Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone= 8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c75 9b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12 c639, CN=Khushboo Mittal Gupta Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.05.15 17:00:18+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 Page 3 of 13 my?_\ 'WflW7we)%_ _ _ _ D5§_ 4 OA No.550/2017
5. It has further been contended that since the applicant has already retired from service, as such, in view of the consistent judicial view being taken by this Bench of the Tribunal, particularly in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 27.11.2024 in the case of Government of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3512, the relief sought by the applicant in the present Original Application with regard to promotion cannot be granted after her retirement.
6. It is also pertinent to note that this Bench has already taken a consistent view in similar matters, including in OA No.18/2024 in the case of Deo Karan Singh Meel Vs. Union of India and others decided on 09.03.2026, wherein the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Amal Sattapathy (supra) was considered and followed. In the said judgment, the decision rendered by this Bench of the Tribunal in a similar matter was also duly taken into consideration in the batch of Original Application Nos.601/2026 titled as Ram Swaroop Ajmera Vs. Union of India and others decided on 31.07.2025 and the view taken, therein, was affirmed and followed. The present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions rendered by this Bench, which are based on the binding precedent of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The relevant extract of paragraph No.6 of the judgment passed in OA No.18/2024, wherein reference has been made to OA Khushboo Mittal Gupta Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone= 8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c75 9b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12 c639, CN=Khushboo Mittal Gupta Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.05.15 17:00:18+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 Page 4 of 13 my?_\ 'WflW7we)%_ _ _ _ D5§_ 5 OA No.550/2017 Nos.601/2026, is reproduced here for ready reference:
"7. The question at the very threshold which needs to be determined is whether the relief claimed by the applicant can be granted in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra) since the applicant has already retired; as such, the relevant extracts of the above cited judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are reproduced as below: -
"15. The primary question that arises for our consideration in the present appeal is whether respondent No.1, who was recommended for the promotion before his retirement but did not receive actual promotion to the higher post due to administrative delays, is entitled to notional financial benefits of the promotional post after his retirement?
xxxxx
19. It is a well settled principle that promotion becomes effective from the date it is granted, rather than from the date a vacancy arises or the post is created. While the Courts have recognized the right to be considered for promotion as not only a statutory right but also a fundamental right, there is no fundamental right to the promotion itself. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to a recent decision of this Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board and Others v. Dharamdeo Das, 2024 SCC Online SC 1768, wherein it was observed as follows:
"18. It is no longer res integra that a promotion is effective from the date it is granted and not from the date when a vacancy occurs on the subject post or when the post itself is created. No doubt, a right to be considered for promotion has been treated by courts not just as a statutory right but as a fundamental right, at the same time, there is no fundamental right to promotion itself. In this context, we may profitably cite a recent decision in Ajay Kumar Shukla v. Arvind Rai, (2022) 12 SCC 579 where, citing earlier precedents in Director, Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty, (1991) 2 SCC 295 and Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, (1999) 7 SCC 209, a three- Judge Bench observed thus:
"41. This Court, time and again, has laid emphasis on right to be considered for promotion to be a fundamental right, as was held by K. Ramaswamy, J., in Director, Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v.
Khushboo Mittal Gupta Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone= 8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c75 9b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12 c639, CN=Khushboo Mittal Gupta Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.05.15 17:00:18+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 Page 5 of 13 my?_\ 'WflW7we)%_ _ _ _ D5§_ 6 OA No.550/2017 Pravat Kiran Mohanty in para 4 of the report which is reproduced below:
'4....... There is no fundamental right to promotion, but an employee has only right to be considered for promotion, when it arises, in accordance with relevant rules. From this perspective in our view the conclusion of the High Court that the gradation list prepared by the corporation is in violation of the right of respondent-writ petitioner to equality enshrined under Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution, and the respondent-writ petitioner was unjustly denied of the same is obviously unjustified'."
xxxxx
20. In State of Bihar v. Akhouri Sachindra Nath, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 334, it was held that retrospective seniority cannot be given to an employee from a date when he was not even borne in the cadre, nor can seniority be given with retrospective effect as that might adversely affect others. The same view was reiterated in Keshav Chandra Joshi v.
Union of India, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 272, where it was held that when a quota is provided for, then the seniority of the employee would be reckoned from the date when the vacancy arises in the quota and not from any anterior date of promotion or subsequent date of confirmation.
xxxxx
38. This Court has consistently held that no retrospective promotion can be granted nor can any seniority be given on retrospective basis from a date when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre particularly when this would adversely affect the direct recruits who have been appointed validity in the meantime."
(emphasis supplied)"
xxxxx
21. While we recognize respondent No.1's right to be considered for promotion, which is a fundamental right Khushboo Mittal Gupta Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone= 8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c75 9b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12 c639, CN=Khushboo Mittal Gupta Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.05.15 17:00:18+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 Page 6 of 13 my?_\ 'WflW7we)%_ _ _ _ D5§_ 7 OA No.550/2017 under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India, he does not hold an absolute right to the promotion itself. The legal precedents discussed above establish that promotion only becomes effective upon the assumption of duties on the promotional post and not on the date of occurrence of the vacancy or the date of recommendation. Considering that respondent No. 1 superannuated before his promotion was effectuated, he is not entitled to retrospective financial benefits associated to the promotional post of Chief Scientific Officer, as he did not serve in that capacity.
22. As a result of the above discussion, the judgment dated 1st February, 2023 passed by the High Court of Calcutta and the judgment dated 26th June, 2019 passed by the Tribunal are unsustainable in the eyes of law and are hereby reversed and set aside."
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment passed in the case of Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra) has been considered by the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in the case of Jai Prakash Padwar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. (WPS No. 3413/2021) in its judgment dated 24.07.2025 and held as below: -
"6. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no notional benefits can be extended where promotion is claimed after retirement; therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed. No cost(s)."
9. The Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in the case of Illa Ananda Nivas Vs. Asst. Commissioner & Anr. (WP No. 30187 of 2011) vide its order dated 11.07.2025 also considered the above mentioned judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra) and in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the Writ Petition and held as below (relevant extracts): -
"7. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Government of West Bengal and others Vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi and others reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3512, held in the following extracted manner: "That even recognizing the promotion is a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India, he does not hold an absolute right to the promotion itself. The legal precedents discussed above establish that promotion only becomes effective upon the assumption of duties on the promotional post and not on the date of occurrence of the vacancy or the date of recommendation."
8. After careful persuasive of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (referred supra), the promotion only Khushboo Mittal Gupta Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone= 8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c75 9b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12 c639, CN=Khushboo Mittal Gupta Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.05.15 17:00:18+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 Page 7 of 13 my?_\ 'WflW7we)%_ _ _ _ D5§_ 8 OA No.550/2017 becomes effective on the assumption of duties and the representation of the respondents that the petitioner was superannuated was not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, the said principle is squarely applicable to the petitioner herein, as he was superannuated. Even assuming that the petitioner is entitled for promotion as claimed by him, he is not entitled to retrospective financial benefits, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (referred supra)."
10. After going through the above mentioned judgments, the crux of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and followed by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in the case of Illa Ananda Nivas (supra) and Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in the case of Jai Prakash Padwar (supra) is that the promotion only becomes effective on assumption of the duties of the promoted post. In other words, the promotion has to be effectuated and to do so, the employee has to be in service so that he can actually assume the duties on the promotional post and since the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in the above cited judgment in Illa Ananda Nivas (supra) has emphasized that "Even assuming that the petitioner is entitled for promotion as claimed by him, he is not entitled to retrospective financial benefits, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (referred supra)."
11. In the case of Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra), the employee was though not granted retrospective promotion after his superannuation by the Hon'ble High Court at Culcutta yet he was granted notional financial benefits for the promotional post. But the Hon'ble Apex Court quashed the order of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta and specifically considered and dealt with the question "whether respondent No.1, who was recommended for the promotion before his retirement but did not receive actual promotion to the higher post due to administrative delays, is entitled to notional financial benefits of the promotional post after his retirement?"
Thus, the Hon'ble Apex Court held employee not entitled even to notional financial benefits for the promotional post despite been recommended for promotion before superannuation and also noticing the administrative delay in actually giving him promotion. It needs to be stressed that in that case, the employee was held fit for promotion and was recommended for promotion to Public Service Commission before his retirement, but the department received the final approval for his promotion by 04th January, 2017, whereas, he superannuated on 30th December, 2016 i.e. barely 04 days prior. Even in such case, the Hon'ble Apex Court declined the relief on the ground that his promotion was not effectuated as he could not assume the responsibilities of a promoted post because he retired prior to that.
Khushboo Mittal Gupta Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone= 8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c75 9b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12 c639, CN=Khushboo Mittal Gupta Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.05.15 17:00:18+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 Page 8 of 13 my?_\ 'WflW7we)%_ _ _ _ D5§_ 9 OA No.550/2017
12. Whereas, in the present case, the applicant has first to get himself declared eligible for him to be even considered for promotion, for which he is seeking modification of the seniority list in the year 2016, which was actually assigned to him way back in the year 2005 and which he never challenged since then. Now the applicant has retired, hence, cannot even be directed to go through the process for promotion and cannot assume the duties of the promotional post. In view of the above position, it is not a fit case for interference by this Tribunal and the same deserves to be dismissed.
13. Accordingly, in view of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Courts (as discussed above), all the Original Applications (OA No. 601/2016, OA No. 320/2015, OA No. 708/2015, OA No. 269/2016 and OA No. 575/2016) are dismissed. No order as to costs."
7. Since it is an admitted position that the applicant has already retired, this Tribunal is first required to deal with the preliminary objections raised by the respondents. Admittedly, the present application was filed by the applicant in the year 2017 when she was about 59 years of age and subsequently, she retired from service on 31.10.2017 upon attaining the age of superannuation, as per the information available on record.
8. This Bench of the Tribunal has consistently taken the view in all such matters where promotion has been sought by the employees who had retired prior to assuming the charge of the promotional post. In yet another recent case bearing OA No.512/2017 (Smt. Sunita Pal LRs Suresh Chandra Pal Vs. Employees Provident Fund Organization) decided on 30.04.2026 on a similar issue, while relying upon the above cited judgments, we considered certain more judgments which were invoked by either side. Some of the relevant extracts are reproduced below :
Khushboo Mittal Gupta Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone= 8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c75 9b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12 c639, CN=Khushboo Mittal Gupta Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.05.15 17:00:18+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 Page 9 of 13 my?_\ 'WflW7we)%_ _ _ _ D5§_ 10 OA No.550/2017 "On the other hand the learned counsel for the applicant had made a good attempt to overcome the legal position settled in view of the above cited judgments by relying upon the certain subsequent judgments by the Hon'ble Apex court -
(i) He has relied upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment/order dated 09.10.2025 in the case of B.N. Dwivedi (IFS) vs. Union of India & Ors. where the promotion to the appellant was granted with retrospective effect. On perusal, it emerges that the appellant therein had not already retired and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Amal Satpathi was also not considered and dealt with.
Second judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the ap- plicant is the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 22.09.2025 the case of Jyotshna Singh vs State of Jhark- hand. This case will also not help the present applicant be- cause the appellant therein had already been promoted to the post of Joint Secretary on 30.11.2022 i.e. before the date of her superannuation.
The third judgments relied upon by the applicant is the judgment dated 27.01.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Samba Moorthy vs Sanjiv Chadha & Ors. The Hon'ble Apex Court granted the retrospective pro- motion to the appellant therein who had already assumed the charge of promotion post, while he was in service. While deciding this case their Lordships had considered and dis- tinguish the judgment of Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra) in para 27 of their judgment which is reproduced as below:
27. We also do not find the judgment in Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra) to be applicable. Unlike in the pre-
sent case, the result of the promotion was not kept in abeyance in that case. There, before the ap- proval for promotion could be received to the post of Chief Scientific Officer, the incumbent had superan- nuated. In this case, in 2012, the appellant as- sumed 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."
As per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra), the litmus test is whether the em- ployee can actually assume the charge of promoted post i.e. effectuation of the promotion, which obviously cannot be in case the government servant has superannuated. The issue of retrospective promotion is different; the employee already assumed the charge of the promoted post during his service tenure and only seeks retrospectively but the situation where Khushboo Mittal Gupta Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone= 8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c75 9b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12 c639, CN=Khushboo Mittal Gupta Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.05.15 17:00:18+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 Page 10 of 13 my?_\ 'WflW7we)%_ _ _ _ D5§_ 11 OA No.550/2017 the employee could not assume the charge of promoted post while in service and had retired, is what has been spe- cifically denied by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Amal Satpathi."
9. In the present case, yet additional materials as well as contentions have been made. Shri B.K.Jatti, learned counsel for the applicant, has made strenuous and his great effort to distinguish the facts of the present case from those of other similarly situated applicants, particularly from the case of Dr. Amal Sattapathy (supra). In order to support his case, learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the case of the applicant deserves interference in the light of the Office Memorandum dated 15.11.2018, according to which a Government servant, who was not recommended in the panel by the original / supplementary DPC but is subsequently recommended in the panel by a review DPC, and who has since retired, may be granted the benefit of notional promotion with effect from the date of promotion of his immediate junior in the review panel, subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. One such condition is that the immediate junior to the retired Government servant must have assumed charge of the higher post on or before the date of superannuation of the retired Government servant.
10. However, in our considered opinion, the above cited Office Memorandum cannot help the case of the present applicant because the said OM contemplates a situation where a Khushboo Mittal Gupta Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone= 8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c75 9b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12 c639, CN=Khushboo Mittal Gupta Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.05.15 17:00:18+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 Page 11 of 13 my?_\ 'WflW7we)%_ _ _ _ D5§_ 12 OA No.550/2017 review DPC is convened and the name of the retired Government servant is recommended in the panel, therein, but if he has since retired, he may be given the benefit of notional promotion from the date of promotion of his immediate junior in the reviewed panel. In the present case, admittedly, there has been no review DPC was ever held nor was the case of the applicant recommended by any such review DPC. Furthermore, no immediate junior was promoted pursuant to any reviewed panel.
11. Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently insisted that one Shri Sher Singh, who was junior to the applicant, had been promoted. However, the applicant neither took such a stand in her Original Application nor submitted any documentary material on record to establish that Shri Sher Singh was, in fact, her junior. Besides, even if the aforesaid OM dated 15.11.2018 is applied, the same is applicable only in cases where a Review DPC is held and the name of the Government servant, who has retired, is recommended in the panel and his immediate junior in the review panel is promoted and has assumed the charge of the higher post before the date of superannuation of the retired Government servant. As has been observed above, no such Review DPC was held in the present case and the applicant was never recommended in the panel. Consequently, since no Review DPC was held, no immediate junior of the applicant was recommended in the review panel.
Khushboo Mittal Gupta Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone= 8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c75 9b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12 c639, CN=Khushboo Mittal Gupta Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.05.15 17:00:18+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 Page 12 of 13 my?_\ 'WflW7we)%_ _ _ _ D5§_ 13 OA No.550/2017
12. Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the judgment dated 02.09.1998 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Baij Nath Sharma Vs. Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur and Anr. We have carefully gone through the said judgment and are of the considered view that the case of the applicant is not similarly situated. Besides, the said judgment was rendered on 02.09.1998, much prior to the judgment dated 27.11.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Amal Sattapathy (supra).
13. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position and considering the admitted fact that the applicant has already retired from service prior to assumption of charge on the promotional post, this Tribunal does not find any ground warranting interference in the matter. Accordingly, the present Original Application stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
14. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed.
(Lok Ranjan) (Ranjana Shahi)
Member (A) Member (J)
kmg*
Khushboo
Mittal Gupta
Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone= 8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c75 9b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12 c639, CN=Khushboo Mittal Gupta Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.05.15 17:00:18+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 Page 13 of 13