HON'BLE MR. K. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. The applicant in this O.A is working as Assistant Naval Store Officer Grade-II (ANSO-II) in the Pay Band of Rs. 9300-34800 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- in the Material Organization under the 3rd respondent, namely the Flag Officer-Commanding-in-Chief, Headquarters Southern Naval Command, Naval Base, Cochin. His next promotion is to the post of ANSO-I in the Pay Band of Rs. 15600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/-. There were 8 vacancies as on 01.01.2010 in the cadre of ASNO-I. Having completed 3 years regular service as ANSO-II on 09.05.2009, he was eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of ANSO-I as on 01.01.2010. Considering the fact that he was to retire from service on 30.11.2010, he had requested the authority concerned to convene a DPC at the earliest and consider him for promotion, on 28.06.10. In the absence of any positive result, he has filed this O.A for a direction to the respondents to convene a meeting of the DPC for promotion to the post ANSO-I for the vacancies of the year 2010-11 and consider his promotion with retrospective effect from 01.04.2010 with all consequential benefits of arrears of pay and allowances.
2. The applicant contended that the delay in convening the DPC despite the mandatory guidelines is unjust and arbitrary. At least he ought to have been considered and promoted on ad hoc basis as ANSO-I since he is within the zone of consideration and at serial No. 2 in the seniority list.
3. The respondents contested the O.A. They admitted that the applicant was eligible to be considered for promotion during 2010-11 alongwith 7 other officers. A proposal in this regard was sent to the UPSC vide letter dated 08.04.2010. Meanwhile, as per DoPandT letter No. 21011/1/2010-Estt-A dated 13.04.2010, in respect of one eligible officer who did not meet the bench mark prescribed for promotion, copies of the ACRs for the period 2006-07 and 2007-08 had to be given to enable him to make a representation. Action on the representation made by the officer against the below bench mark grading is under process. Only when it is completed, a meeting of the DPC can be held. Therefore, the case of the applicant could not be finalized. The delay, therefore, cannot be termed as arbitrary and intentional.
4. We have heard Mr. T.C. Govindaswamy, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Sunil Jacob Jose, learned SCGSC appearing for the respondents and perused the records.
5. The meetings of the DPCs are to be held as per the instructions laid down by the Government. The delay occurred in following the rule to conduct the DPC for promotion to the post of ANSO-I cannot be termed as arbitrary, illegal or discriminatory. No employee has an indefeasible right to promotion. He is entitled to consideration for promotion only. In case of the applicant he could not be considered for promotion as ANSO-I before his retirement on 30.11.2010. Had he been in service, he could not have a legitimate grievance to seek redressal. The fact that he retired without getting a promotion for which he was eligible to be considered makes a difference. The financial benefits that could have accrued on promotion were not just delayed but denied to the applicant for no fault of his unless corrective action is taken. True, the respondents also cannot be held responsible for the situation. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that it would be fair and just if the applicant is given notional promotion with effect from 01.04.2010, if he is found fit for promotion as ANSO-I by the DPC so that he will not be deprived of increase in pension and other retiral benefits. If the DPC has not yet considered his case, a meeting of the DPC should be held as early as possible. For this limited purpose, UPSC is impleaded suo moto as a party to this O.A.
6. The respondents are directed to hold a meeting of the DPC, if the applicant has not already been considered for promotion, as early as possible as per rules to consider the applicant for promotion as ANSO-I and if he is found fit for promotion, he should be promoted with effect from 01.04.2010 notionally and his pensionary and other retiral benefits should be revised accordingly within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. The O.A. is allowed to the extent indicated above with no order as to costs.