Union Of INDIA vs. Bokka Sukumar

Facts

The petitioner, Union of India, challenged an order dated 05/04/2019 by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Hyderabad Bench. The CAT had directed the promotion of the respondent, Bokka Sukumar, an Inspector in the Customs and Central Excise Department, to the post of Superintendent on an ad-hoc basis. The respondent was appointed as Inspector on 09.03.2010 and reported for duty on 05.04.2010. The service rules require eight years of service for promotion to Superintendent. Promotions were effected on 01.04.2018, but the respondent was not promoted as he had completed only seven years, eleven months, and twenty-six days of service as of that date, falling short by five days, while his juniors were promoted. The CAT directed his ad-hoc promotion from the date his juniors were promoted, with consequential pay and allowances.

Held

The High Court agreed with the CAT regarding the eligibility of the respondent concerning the computation of qualifying service vis-à-vis his juniors. However, the Court held that granting retrospective ad-hoc promotion does not arise at this stage. Ad-hoc promotions are inherently stop-gap arrangements subject to review, especially after the finalization of seniority in the lower cadre. Therefore, the Court could not sustain the CAT's order to the extent it granted retrospective ad-hoc promotion. The Court noted that the respondent was promoted as Superintendent on an ad-hoc basis w.e.f. 31.12.2019. The Court directed that while reviewing promotions to the post of Superintendent on a regular basis, and when assessing the eligibility of juniors by treating them as having eight years of service due to earlier joining dates, the respondent shall also be considered by assigning him notional service to match the service rendered by juniors who secured less merit in the recruitment examination.

Key Issues

1. Whether the CAT erred in directing the ad-hoc promotion of the respondent on a retrospective basis, considering that all promotions were ad-hoc and a stop-gap arrangement pending finalization of inter-se seniority litigation? Contentions: Petitioner (Union of India): Argued that all promotions were ad-hoc, made as a stop-gap arrangement pending the resolution of seniority disputes. Granting retrospective promotion on an ad-hoc basis is not permissible. The respondent admittedly did not complete eight years of service as on the cut-off date of 01.04.2018, and no notional service was computed for these ad-hoc promotions. The department is undertaking an exercise to finalize seniority and regular promotions based on Supreme Court directions. Respondent (Bokka Sukumar): The CAT found fault with the petitioners for not considering the respondent for promotion while granting it to his juniors, who had earlier joining dates. The CAT held that notionally, the respondent's date of joining should be ante-dated to that of his juniors, which would make him eligible for promotion.