Shri Suraj Bhan vs Union Of India & Ors.

Hon’ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member(J)

The applicant has filed the present OA seeking consideration of his case for promotion to the post of Hindi Officer/Assistant Director (Official Language) and grant of consequential notional promotion benefits on the ground that he belongs to the PwBD category and was eligible for promotion during his service.

The applicant was appointed as Junior Hindi Translator on 27.09.1995 and was subsequently promoted to the post of Senior Hindi Translator on 31.03.2006. It is his case that the respondents repeatedly initiated the process for convening the Departmental Promotion Committee from the year 2013 onwards, but no DPC was actually held. He has also relied upon the Office Memorandum dated 28.12.2023 issued by DoPT and the consequential circulars dated 08.01.2024 and 15.02.2024 issued by the Directorate of Ordnance (Coordination & Services). The applicant also submitted representations dated 09.12.2015 and 11.10.2016 seeking promotion under the PwBD category. Thereafter, despite the applicant's claim that the DPC process was repeatedly initiated, no promotion was granted. Even the subsequent communication dated 02.07.2024 calling for DPC particulars and the forwarding of the applicant's proposal on 10.07.2024 did not culminate in his promotion before his superannuation on 30.04.2025.

The applicant superannuated from service on 30.04.2025 and thereafter submitted a representation dated 05.02.2026 seeking notional promotion, which remains unanswered. Hence, this OA.

Having considered the averments made in the OA, we find that the grievance of the applicant relates to non-consideration of his case for promotion during his service tenure. As per his own pleadings, the issue of non-filling of the posts of Hindi Officer was being raised as early as 2013, and representations seeking promotion were also made in the subsequent years. The applicant has, however, approached this Tribunal only after his retirement, on the basis of a representation submitted on 05.02.2026.

The law is well settled that repeated representations do not revive a stale claim or furnish a fresh cause of action for the purpose of limitation. In C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining, (2008) 10 SCC 115, and Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a belated representation cannot revive a time-barred claim. The question of limitation has to be examined with reference to the original cause of action and not merely the date of a subsequent representation or its consideration.

In the present case, the applicant's own pleadings show that his grievance regarding non-consideration for promotion had arisen several years before his retirement. The repeated initiation of the process for convening a DPC, without any consequential promotion, does not, by itself, extend the period of limitation indefinitely. The subsequent representation dated 05.02.2026 cannot, therefore, be treated as giving rise to a fresh cause of action in respect of the long-standing grievance.

Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 prescribes the period of limitation for approaching this Tribunal. The OA is required to be examined in the light of the said statutory mandate. The applicant has not disclosed any sufficient explanation in the pleadings for not approaching this Tribunal within the prescribed period in respect of his grievance regarding non-consideration for promotion. The claim, insofar as it seeks to reopen the past failure to consider him for promotion, is thus hit by delay and laches and cannot be entertained merely on the basis of a subsequent representation.

Further, the applicant admittedly superannuated from service on 30.04.2025 without having been promoted to the higher post. In Government of West Bengal & Ors. v. Dr. Amal Satpathy & Ors., 2024 INSC 906, decided on 27.11.2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that although an employee has a right to be considered for promotion, there is no absolute right to promotion itself, which ordinarily becomes effective upon assumption of duties on the promotional post. The said judgment also makes it clear that retrospective promotional benefits cannot be claimed as a matter of right merely on the basis of the occurrence of vacancies or the delay in effecting promotion.

In view of the aforesaid settled position of law, the applicant, having approached this Tribunal after his superannuation to seek notional promotion on the basis of a grievance which, according to his own pleadings, had persisted for several years, cannot be permitted to revive a stale claim through a subsequent representation. The reliance placed upon the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 28.12.2023 and the consequential departmental circulars does not, by itself, dispense with the requirement of approaching this Tribunal within the period prescribed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, we find that the applicant has failed to make out a case warranting admission of the OA. The OA is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself. No costs.