AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):
The applicant has filed the present O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
―a. Declare the DPC order dated 31.12.2025 as notified on 01.01.2026 passed by the Central Board of Direct taxes vide Office Order No. 299 of 2025 as arbitrary, illegal, and discriminatory, being violative of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution of India to the extent that the present Applicant was wrongfully excluded from consideration for promotion to the grade of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT)/Junior Administrative Grade;
b. By appropriate Order and direction, direct the Respondent to forthwith consider the Applicant for promotion to the grade of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT)/Junior Administrative Grade with effect from 01.01.2026, i.e., the date on which officers of the Applicant’s batch were promoted, along with all consequential benefits; and
c. Direct the Respondent to consider the Applicant for promotion by forthwith holding a Review DPC and if found fit to promote, the Applicant be promoted with retrospective effect from 01.01.2026 retaining the seniority of the Applicant; and
d. Pass any such other order/directions as this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.‖
FACTS OF THE CASE
As stated by the applicant, she is an officer of the Indian Revenue Service (Income Tax), 2016 Batch, appointed pursuant to the Civil Services Examination, 2015 conducted by the Union Public Service Commission under the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) category. She successfully completed her probation and was confirmed in service with effect from 29.08.2018. She is presently serving under the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), Ministry of Finance, Government of India, and has, according to her, maintained an outstanding and unblemished service record.
The applicant states that during her service career, she was entrusted with various important assignments, including matters relating to international taxation and economic diplomacy in the Foreign Tax and Tax Research Wing of the CBDT, the Government of India’s legal defence in the Cairn International Investment Arbitration matter, and negotiations concerning international investment agreements, the OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Two-Pillar Solution and the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework. She was also appointed on deputation as Under Secretary in the Senior Executive Cadre of the Cabinet Secretariat in September 2023.
On 04.12.2024, the Department of Revenue issued a Show Cause Notice questioning the applicant’s entitlement to appointment under the PwBD category. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 377 of 2025 challenging the said Show Cause Notice. Vide judgment and final order dated 09.12.2025, this Tribunal allowed O.A. No. 377 of 2025 and quashed and set aside the Show Cause Notice dated 04.12.2024. The Tribunal further directed that the applicant be granted all consequential benefits naturally flowing from the quashing of the said notice and that the respondents undertake consequential compliance in accordance with law.
Thereafter, the Central Board of Direct Taxes issued Office Order No. 299 of 2025 dated 31.12.2025, promoting 266 officers belonging to the IRS (Income Tax), 2016 Batch, to the grade of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Level 12 in the Pay Matrix) on an ad hoc basis, with effect from 01.01.2026, or the date of assumption of charge, whichever was later. However, the applicant was not included in the said promotion order. The applicant claims that she fulfilled all prescribed eligibility conditions for promotion and had completed the requisite qualifying service. She further states that no departmental or disciplinary proceedings were pending against her and that the only proceeding initiated against her, namely, the Show Cause Notice dated 04.12.2024, had already been quashed and set aside by this Tribunal on 09.12.2025.
According to the applicant, officers immediately senior/junior to her in the batch sequence and seniority position, bearing Civil Code Nos. 16166 and 16168, were promoted under the aforesaid office order, whereas the applicant, bearing Civil Code No. 16167, was excluded without any reason being assigned in the promotion order or through any separate communication.
Aggrieved by her exclusion, the applicant submitted a representation dated 05.01.2026 to the Chairman, CBDT, requesting correction of the alleged anomaly and consideration of her case for promotion. However, according to the applicant, no decision was communicated to her on the said representation. Subsequently, the applicant submitted another representation dated 21.04.2026, reiterating her grievance and pointing out that the continued denial of promotion was adversely affecting her seniority, career progression, eligibility for deputation opportunities and future service prospects. The said representation was received by the respondent on 22.04.2026. The applicant asserts that neither representation has been decided nor any reasons for her exclusion have been communicated to her.
The applicant contends that her exclusion from promotion, despite the judgment dated 09.12.2025 passed in O.A. No. 377 of 2025 and the promotion of other officers of her batch, is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. She relies, inter alia, upon the principles laid down in Union of India Vs. K. V. Jankiraman, reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109, and other judgments cited in the Original Application, in support of her claim for fair consideration for promotion in the absence of any pending disciplinary proceedings.
Accordingly, the applicant has filed the present O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking, inter alia, a declaration that Office Order No. 299 of 2025 dated 31.12.2025 is arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory to the extent of her exclusion; a direction to the respondents to consider her for promotion to the grade of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax/Junior Administrative Grade with effect from 01.01.2026, with consequential benefits; and a direction for convening a Review Departmental Promotion Committee (Review DPC) to consider her case with effect from the date on which the cases of her batchmates were considered.
Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondent has filed reply opposing the claim of the applicant. In response thereto, the applicant has also filed rejoinder.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANT
Mr. Jai Anant Dehadrai, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the action of the respondent in excluding the applicant from promotion to the grade of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT) vide Office Order No. 299 of 2025 dated 31.12.2025 is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and unsustainable in law. The Applicant admittedly belongs to the Indian Revenue Service (IT), 2016 Batch and fulfilled all eligibility conditions prescribed for promotion to the said grade. Despite the same, the Applicant alone was excluded from promotion while 266 officers of the same batch were promoted, without assigning any reason whatsoever. Such unexplained exclusion of an otherwise eligible officer is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
He further submits that the respondent has acted in complete disregard of the judgment and final order dated 09.12.2025 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 377 of 2025 whereby the Show Cause Notice dated 04.12.2024 stood quashed and set aside and the applicant was held entitled to all consequential benefits flowing therefrom. Once the very foundation of the proceedings initiated against the Applicant stood nullified by judicial determination, the respondent could not continue to visit the applicant with adverse service consequences, directly or indirectly, on the basis of the very proceedings which had already been quashed.
Learned counsel states that the promotion order dated 31.12.2025 was issued subsequent to the judgment dated 09.12.2025 passed by this Tribunal. Consequently, the respondent was duty bound to consider the applicant for promotion in accordance with law and in terms of the directions issued by this Tribunal. The failure to do so amounts to a colourable exercise of power and effectively defeats the binding judicial determination rendered in favour of the applicant.
Learned counsel also states that the respondent has acted in complete disregard of the settled position of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India Vs. K. V. Jankiraman, reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter alia, held as under:
―17. There is no doubt that there is a seeming contradiction between the two conclusions. But read harmoniously, and that is what the Full Bench has intended, the two conclusions can be reconciled with each other. The conclusion No. 1 should be read to mean that the promotion etc. cannot be withheld merely because some disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against the employee. To deny the said benefit, they must be at the relevant time pending at the stage when charge-memo/charge-sheet has already been issued to the employee. Thus read, there is no inconsistency in the two conclusions.‖
The Applicant has consistently maintained an outstanding and unblemished service record and has never been visited with any adverse finding. In fact, the only proceeding ever initiated against the applicant was the Show Cause Notice dated 04.12.2024, which itself stood quashed and set aside by this Tribunal vide Judgment/Order dated 09.12.2025, i.e., prior to the issuance of Office Order No. 299 of 2025 dated 31.12.2025 whereby officers of the applicant’s batch were promoted to the grade of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax. Therefore, on the date when the promotion order was issued, there existed no subsisting disciplinary proceedings, charge memorandum, charge-sheet or any other legal impediment which could justify the applicant’s exclusion from promotion.
Learned counsel further states that the facts of the present case and the dispute at hand are covered by the recent judgment passed by this Tribunal in the matter of N. Asha Vs. Union of India, reported in (2022 SCC OnLine CAT 5416). In the said judgment, this Tribunal was considering denial of promotion to the applicant in the DPC on the basis that disciplinary proceedings were pending at time prior to the DPC meeting. Rejecting such reasoning by the department, this Tribunal placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. V. Jankiraman ((1991) 4 SCC 109, Para 16) and held that unless there were disciplinary proceedings or charges pending against the applicant, on the date of the consideration i.e. DPC, promotion could not be denied. Furthermore, it was also held and clarified that even mere contemplation of disciplinary proceedings cannot be a valid reason to defer the promotion of any employee. This Tribunal clarified that promotion, as a matter of right to which such person is entitled, cannot be denied on some suspicion or contemplation of initiating disciplinary proceedings. For these reasons, this Tribunal directed the Department to consider the case of the applicant for promotion with effect from the date of DPC along with all consequential benefits.
Learned counsel contends that on the date the impugned Office Order No. 299 of 2025 dated 31.12.2025 came to be issued, there were no disciplinary proceedings pending against the applicant. The only proceeding ever initiated against the applicant was the Show Cause Notice dated 04.12.2024, which stood quashed and set aside by this Tribunal as far back as 09.12.2025, i.e., more than three weeks prior to the date of issuance of the impugned promotion order. There existed no memo of charges, no charge-sheet and no proceeding of any kind pending or contemplated, against the applicant as on 31.12.2025. In these circumstances, the exclusion of the applicant from the promotion granted to 266 of her batchmates including her juniors, cannot be justified or explained on the ground of any pending proceeding, since none existed in fact or in law as on the relevant date. This Tribunal in N. Asha Vs. Union of India, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine CAT 5416, has held that promotion, as a matter of right to which an employee is entitled cannot be denied on some suspicion or contemplation of initiating disciplinary proceedings.
Learned counsel further contends that the officers who were junior to the applicant have been promoted vide the very same Office Order No. 299 of 2025 dated 31.12.2025, from which the applicant alone has been excluded. The fact that juniors of the applicant have been promoted while the applicant has been left out, makes the exclusion entirely arbitrary. The respondent consciously chose to promote juniors of the applicant and excluded her without assigning any reasons whatsoever.
Learned counsel submits that after the Show Cause Notice was quashed the very foundation for withholding promotion ceased to exist. The applicant is required to be treated as fully exonerated and is entitled to all consequential benefits, including promotion. The respondent is under a legal obligation to evaluate the employee for promotion without the show-cause notice coming in the way of such evaluation.
Learned counsel further states that the respondent has failed to communicate any reason whatsoever for excluding the applicant from promotion. Neither the promotion order nor any subsequent communication discloses the basis on which the applicant’s case was treated differently from other similarly situated officers of the same batch. The absence of any reasoned decision renders the impugned action arbitrary, opaque and violative of the settled principles governing public administration.
Learned counsel also states that the respondent has failed to furnish any valid reason whatsoever for excluding the applicant from promotion to the grade of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax vide Office Order No. 299 of 2025 dated 31.12.2025. The applicant admittedly fulfilled all the prescribed eligibility conditions for promotion and belonged to the same batch of officers who were promoted under the said order. However, despite repeated representations dated 05.01.2026 and 21.04.2026, the respondent has neither disclosed the basis of her exclusion nor communicated any decision thereon. The aforesaid action is contrary to the settled position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Sangram Keshari Nayak, reported in (2007) 6 SCC 704, where it was held as under:-
―11. Promotion is not a fundamental right. Right to be considered for promotion, however, is a fundamental right. Such a right brings within its purview an effective, purposeful and meaningful consideration. Suitability or otherwise of the candidate concerned, however, must be left at the hands of the DPC, but the same has to be determined in terms of the rules applicable therefor. Indisputably, the DPC recommended the case of the respondent for promotion. On the day on which, it is accepted at the Bar, the DPC held its meeting, no vigilance enquiry was pending. No decision was also taken by the employer that a departmental proceeding should be initiated against him.‖
Learned counsel states that very Show Cause Notice dated 04.12.2024, which has since been quashed and set aside by this Tribunal vide Judgment/Order dated 09.12.2025, had already subjected the applicant to serious prejudice even prior to its quashing, inasmuch as the applicant came to be prematurely repatriated from her deputation post in the Senior Executive Cadre of the Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India due to the issuance of the said Show Cause Notice, thereby curtailing a prestigious deputation which the applicant was otherwise discharging diligently. The applicant is thus being made to suffer a double prejudice on the basis of one and the same Show Cause Notice which is firstly, by way of premature repatriation and secondly, by way of continued exclusion from promotion to the grade of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax despite the Show Cause Notice having been quashed and set aside. The Respondent, having failed to undo the prejudice already caused by way of premature repatriation, is bound, at the very least, to ensure that no further prejudice is perpetuated against the applicant by withholding her from her rightful promotion.
Learned counsel argues that the action of the respondent in singling out and excluding the applicant from promotion to the grade of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax vide Office Order No. 299 of 2025 dated 31.12.2025, without disclosing any reasons whatsoever, is contrary to the settled position of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India, reported in (1990) 4 SCC 594, wherein it was held as under:-
―36. Reasons, when recorded by an administrative authority in an order passed by it while exercising quasi-judicial functions, would no doubt facilitate the exercise of its jurisdiction by the appellate or supervisory authority. But the other considerations, referred to above, which have also weighed with this Court in holding that an administrative authority must record reasons for its decision, are of no less significance. These considerations show that the recording of reasons by an administrative authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. The said purpose would apply equally to all decisions and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. In our opinion, therefore, the requirement that reasons be recorded should govern the decisions of an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. It may, however, be added that it is not required that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a court of law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage. The appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons if the appellate or revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge.‖
Learned counsel also argues that the applicant was entitled to fair and equal consideration for promotion along with all other officers of the 2016 Batch. Fair consideration for promotion is an integral facet of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The respondent has denied the applicant equal treatment without any disclosed rationale and has thereby infringed the applicant’s constitutional right to equality in matters relating to public employment.
Learned counsel contends that the hostile discrimination meted out to the applicant is apparent from the face of the record. Officers immediately senior/junior to the applicant in the batch sequence and seniority position, namely officers bearing Civil Code Nos. 16166 and 16168, were promoted under Office Order No. 299 of 2025 dated 31.12.2025, whereas the applicant bearing Civil Code No. 16167 alone was excluded. The respondent has failed to disclose any distinguishing factor justifying such differential and discriminatory treatment.
Learned counsel further contends that the action of the respondent in excluding the applicant from promotion to the grade of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax vide Office Order No. 299 of 2025 dated 31.12.2025, while simultaneously promoting all other similarly situated officers of the applicant’s batch, is contrary to the settled position of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kamal Prasad Dubey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2026 INSC 353, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that denial of an identical service benefit to one employee while granting the same benefit to similarly situated employees, without any rational or distinguishing justification, is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and that administrative discretion cannot be exercised selectively. The respondent has failed to disclose any distinguishing circumstance, adverse material, disqualification or legal impediment which would justify treating the applicant differently from her batchmates. The applicant admittedly fulfilled all eligibility conditions for promotion and no disciplinary proceedings, vigilance proceedings or criminal proceedings were pending against her.
Learned counsel submits that immediately upon becoming aware of her exclusion, the applicant submitted a detailed representation dated 05.01.2026 requesting rectification of the anomaly and specifically pointing out that she fulfilled all eligibility conditions for promotion. Despite receipt of the said representation, the respondent failed to communicate any decision thereon. The unexplained inaction of the respondent demonstrates non-application of mind and abdication of their statutory and administrative responsibilities.
Learned counsel also submits that even after the lapse of more than one hundred days from the submission of the first representation, the respondent neither corrected the anomaly nor communicated any reason for the applicant’s exclusion. The applicant was therefore constrained to submit a second representation dated 21.04.2026. The continued silence maintained by the respondent despite repeated representations reflects arbitrariness in administrative action and violates the requirement of fairness expected from public authorities.
Learned counsel argues that it has now been more than seven months since the Show Cause Notice dated 04.12.2024 was quashed and set aside by this Tribunal vide Judgment/Order dated 09.12.2025, and more than six months since the notification of the DPC. Thus, it has been more than six months since the respondent has been withholding the applicant’s promotion without any justification whatsoever. The continued and prolonged withholding of promotion, long after the very foundation for the same has ceased to exist, is causing grave and continuing prejudice to the applicant, including loss of seniority with respect to her batchmates, adverse impact on her pay fixation and future financial benefits, and serious detriment to her career progression.
Learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. Ajit Kumar Shrivastava Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. in [Civil Appeal No. 7805-7806 of 2022] dealt with a case where only Show Cause Notice was issued against the Petitioner therein and no other inquiry had been initiated. It held that before initiation of any disciplinary enquiry, there could not be any possibility of imposing a punishment. It observed that since no procedure or inquiry has been initiated against the Petitioner therein, the stage to inflict penalty of not promoting the candidate does not arise. The Hon’ble Supreme Court directed that the sealed cover be open qua the Petitioner therein and further orders be passed in accordance with law and all consequential benefits.
Learned counsel submits that the applicant’s case stands on a stronger footing than those officers in respect of whom the sealed cover procedure was invoked and against whom a chargesheet was filed at the time the DPC considered their cases. In respect of such officers, the law requires that the sealed cover be kept intact until the conclusion of proceedings, and that the benefit of promotion be extended only thereafter, upon exoneration or acquittal on merits. The applicant never had any such proceeding against her. The only action taken against her was the issuance of the Show Cause Notice dated 04.12.2024 which did not constitute the initiation of departmental proceedings, and was thereafter quashed and set aside by this Tribunal on 09.12.2025.
Learned counsel further submits that the applicant possesses an outstanding and unblemished service record and has throughout her service career been entrusted with assignments of considerable importance and responsibility by the Government of India. The applicant has neither been subjected to any disciplinary proceedings nor visited with any adverse findings. In the absence of any disqualification known to law, the denial of promotion to the applicant is manifestly arbitrary and unsustainable.
Learned counsel also submits that the continued denial of promotion has caused serious and continuing prejudice to the applicant’s service career. The applicant has specifically brought to the notice of the respondent that her exclusion from the grade of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax has adversely affected her career progression, eligibility for deputation opportunities and future service prospects. The respondent has nevertheless failed to take any corrective action.
Learned counsel argues that the conduct of the respondent has given rise to a legitimate expectation in favour of the applicant that upon quashing of the Show Cause Notice and grant of consequential benefits by this Tribunal, she would be considered for promotion along with all other officers of her batch. The arbitrary denial of such consideration defeats the legitimate expectation arising from both the judgment of this Tribunal and the applicant’s otherwise unblemished service record.
Learned counsel further argues that the respondent cannot be permitted to achieve indirectly what it is prohibited from doing directly. Having failed to sustain the proceedings initiated against the applicant and having suffered an adverse judgment before this Tribunal, the respondent cannot continue the same prejudice by withholding promotion without any disclosed reason. Such action amounts to circumvention of the judgment dated 09.12.2025 and is therefore liable to be set aside.
Learned counsel submits that the impugned action of the Respondent is arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and is therefore liable to be quashed and appropriate directions deserve to be issued for consideration and promotion of the Applicant to the grade of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT) with all consequential benefits including seniority, pay fixation and all attendant service benefits.
Learned counsel also submits that the applicant being fully eligible and having fulfilled all prescribed conditions for promotion to the grade of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT)/Junior Administrative Grade, her case was required to be placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for consideration for promotion along with other eligible officers of the IRS (Income Tax) 2016 Batch. However, the applicant was not considered for promotion at all and was excluded from the zone of consideration without any reason being communicated or any adverse material being disclosed to her. Such non-consideration of an otherwise eligible officer amounts to denial of fair and meaningful consideration for promotion and is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, a Review Departmental Promotion Committee (Review DPC) is required to be convened to consider the case of the Applicant as on the relevant date when the original DPC considered the cases of her batchmates, and upon being found fit, the Applicant is entitled to promotion with effect from the same date as her batchmates along with all consequential service benefits i.e. with effect from 01.01.2026.
It is submitted that the Judgment dated 09.12.2025 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 377 of 2025 whereby the Show Cause Notice dated 04.12.2024 stood quashed and set aside and the applicant was held entitled to all consequential benefits flowing therefrom, was challenged by the respondents before the Hon’ble High Court by way of Writ Petition (C) No. 13565/2026 in the matter of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Vidyotma Singh, and the same was dismissed.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
Mr. Jalaj Agarwal, learned counsel, by referring to the contents of the reply filed on 02.09.2026 on behalf of respondents, submitted that the present O.A. is misconceived, untenable and devoid of merit. The respondent has acted in accordance with the prescribed norms and applicable guidelines while considering the eligible officers for ad hoc promotion to the grade of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT) for the vacancy year 2026. No illegality or discrimination, as alleged by the applicant, has been committed by the respondents.
Learned counsel submits that the applicant, along with other eligible officers, was considered for promotion to the grade of JCIT on an ad hoc basis by the Screening Committee in its meeting held on 30.12.2025. Such consideration involved screening and assessment of the service records of the officers concerned, including the complaints pending against them. The mere fact that an officer fulfils the prescribed eligibility conditions does not, by itself, confer an automatic right to promotion without assessment by the competent committee.
It is further submitted that a complaint was received from the Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T), referring to reports alleging that certain candidates who had appeared in the Civil Services Examination in different years, including the applicant, had allegedly obtained the benefit of reservation under the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) category on the basis of disability certificates alleged to have been fraudulently obtained. In view of the said complaint, the applicant’s PwBD status was re-examined, and a Show Cause Notice dated 04.12.2024 was issued to her. The said complaint was also taken into consideration by the Screening Committee while assessing the applicant's case for ad hoc promotion.
Learned counsel submits that the Screening Committee, after considering the relevant facts and circumstances, recommended deferral of the applicant’s ad hoc promotion on administrative grounds, having regard to the complaint pending against her. Consequently, her name was not included in Office Order No. 299 of 2025 dated 31.12.2025. The decision was thus taken in the course of the prescribed screening exercise and was not an arbitrary or discriminatory exclusion, as alleged by the applicant.
It is further submitted that the Screening Committee performs the relevant screening function in lieu of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). In this regard, the respondents rely upon DoP&T Office Memorandum dated 10.04.1989, particularly paragraph 6.1.2 thereof, which provides that the DPC enjoys full discretion to devise its own methods and procedures for the objective assessment of the suitability of candidates being considered by it. The respondents submit that the assessment of suitability is within the domain of the competent screening authority, and the applicant cannot claim that her name must necessarily be included in the promotion order merely because other officers of her batch were promoted.
With regard to the judgment and final order dated 09.12.2025 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A. No. 377/2025, learned counsel submits that the said order quashed and set aside the Show Cause Notice dated 04.12.2024 and directed the respondents to grant consequential benefits naturally accruing therefrom. However, the applicant’s claim for promotion to the grade of JCIT is required to be considered in accordance with the applicable service rules, prescribed norms and the assessment of suitability by the competent authority. The quashing of the Show Cause Notice cannot, by itself, be construed as an automatic direction for promotion, without the requisite assessment and decision by the competent authority.
Learned counsel further submits that the applicant’s reliance upon the promotion of other officers, including those bearing Civil Code Nos. 16166 and 16168, does not, by itself, establish that the decision in her case was arbitrary. The respondent’s case is that the Screening Committee considered the relevant circumstances pertaining to the applicant and recommended deferral of her promotion on administrative grounds. The applicant’s claim for parity must, therefore, be examined in the context of the applicable promotion procedure and the assessment undertaken by the competent committee.
Insofar as the applicant’s representations dated 05.01.2026 and 21.04.2026 are concerned, learned counsel submits that the representation dated 05.01.2026 and other similar representations submitted by the applicant are presently under consideration. The respondents have not rejected the applicant’s grievance without consideration; rather, the matter is under examination by the competent authority. The applicant's claim for immediate promotion or retrospective promotion cannot be allowed merely on the ground that her representations have not yet culminated in a final decision.
Learned counsel submits that the applicant’s allegations of violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India are denied. The decision in question was taken pursuant to the screening process and on the basis of the circumstances considered relevant by the Screening Committee. The applicant has not established any enforceable right to automatic promotion or demonstrated that the competent authority was required to recommend her promotion irrespective of the assessment undertaken in her case.
As regards the applicant’s reliance upon the judgments cited in the Original Application, learned counsel submits that the legal principles relied upon by the applicant must be applied in the context of the facts and circumstances of the present case. The applicant’s entitlement to consideration for promotion cannot be equated with an indefeasible right to be promoted with effect from 01.01.2026. The claim for retrospective promotion and consequential benefits would require consideration in accordance with the applicable rules and the decision of the competent authority.
In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the applicant has failed to establish any ground warranting interference by this Tribunal with the impugned Office Order No. 299 of 2025 dated 31.12.2025. The Original Application, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the Original Application, being devoid of merit, in the interest of justice.
REBUTTAL TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
In response to the counter reply filed by the respondents, the applicant filed a rejoinder on 17.09.2026, reiterating the averments and submissions as made in the O.A. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the counter reply filed by the respondents proceeds on an incorrect premise and fails to appreciate the legal effect of the judgment and final order dated 09.12.2025 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 377/2025. It is submitted that the Show Cause Notice dated 04.12.2024, which questioned the applicant’s entitlement to appointment under the PwBD category, had already been quashed and set aside by this Tribunal prior to the meeting of the Screening Committee held on 30.12.2025 and the issuance of the impugned Office Order No. 299 of 2025 dated 31.12.2025.
Learned counsel submits that, despite the aforesaid judicial pronouncement, the respondents continued to rely upon the very same Show Cause Notice and the underlying communication received from the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to justify the deferment of the applicant’s promotion. It is contended that the counter reply does not adequately explain how an administrative communication forming the basis of a Show Cause Notice already quashed by this Tribunal could continue to operate as a valid ground for withholding the applicant’s promotion, particularly when the earlier judgment directed the respondents to extend all consequential benefits flowing from the quashing of the said notice.
Learned counsel further submits that the respondents’ own averments in paragraphs 4.7 to 4.22 of the counter reply indicate that the applicant’s promotion was deferred by the Screening Committee on account of a complaint pending against her on administrative grounds, arising from the aforesaid communication and Show Cause Notice. Thus, according to the applicant, the counter reply itself establishes the nexus between the pending administrative complaint and the deferment of her promotion. The respondents have not disclosed any independent disciplinary proceedings, charge memorandum, charge-sheet or vigilance proceedings pending against the applicant as on the relevant date which could otherwise justify such deferment.
It is contended that the discretion vested in a Departmental Promotion Committee under paragraph 6.1.2 of the DoP&T Office Memorandum dated 10.04.1989 cannot be exercised arbitrarily or in disregard of a binding judicial order. Although the Committee may adopt an appropriate procedure for assessing the suitability of an officer, such discretion must be exercised in accordance with law and on relevant considerations. The applicant submits that the discretion to defer her promotion could not be used to perpetuate the adverse consequences of the Show Cause Notice after the same had been quashed and set aside by this Tribunal.
Learned counsel submits that the judgment dated 09.12.2025 had neither been stayed nor, according to the applicant, challenged by the respondents before any competent forum. Consequently, the respondents were bound to comply with the directions contained therein. The applicant relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi dated 13.05.2025 in Staff Selection Commission, through its Chairman & Anr. Vs. Deshbandhu, W.P.(C) No. 6259/2025, in support of the proposition that unexplained delay in challenging an order passed by the Tribunal may have serious legal consequences. It is submitted that the respondents cannot avoid the consequences of an operative judicial order by continuing to rely upon the very circumstances which formed the subject matter of the earlier proceedings.
Learned counsel further submits that the applicant has specifically questioned the correctness and completeness of the statements made in the counter reply on oath, particularly insofar as the effect of the judgment dated 09.12.2025 has not been appropriately addressed. The applicant contends that the relevant facts were material to the respondents’ defence and ought to have been fully and accurately disclosed before this Tribunal. The applicant has, accordingly, indicated that she is taking separate steps in accordance with law in respect of the alleged false statements and suppression of material facts. It is submitted that the correctness of the respondents’ stand may be examined in the light of the judicial record and the pleadings placed before this Tribunal.
Learned counsel submits that the applicant has already submitted representations dated 05.01.2026 and 21.04.2026 seeking reconsideration of her exclusion from the promotion order. However, the respondents have neither decided the said representations nor communicated any reason for excluding her, while officers immediately senior and junior to her in the same batch have been promoted. Such unexplained differential treatment, according to the applicant, is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Learned counsel further submits that the continuing denial of promotion is causing substantial and irreparable prejudice to the applicant’s career progression. It is pointed out that several deputation opportunities have arisen in various Government organisations and departments, for which eligibility is linked to holding an analogous post in Level 12/13 of the Pay Matrix or possessing the requisite qualifying regular service in the feeder grade. Since the applicant continues to remain in Level 11, whereas her promoted batchmates have moved to Level 12, she is being deprived of the opportunity to apply for and compete for such posts. The resulting prejudice is not confined to delayed monetary benefits but also affects her professional advancement and future career prospects.
In view of the foregoing submissions, learned counsel for the applicant prays that the respondent be directed to give effect to the judgment dated 09.12.2025 passed in O.A. No. 377/2025 in its true letter and spirit; reconsider the applicant’s claim for promotion without relying upon the quashed Show Cause Notice as an independent subsisting impediment; and grant her promotion to the grade of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax/Junior Administrative Grade with effect from the date on which similarly situated eligible officers of her batch were promoted, together with consequential service benefits, in accordance with the applicable rules.
In the alternative, learned counsel prays that the respondent be directed to undertake a time-bound reconsideration of the applicant’s case and pass a reasoned and speaking order disclosing the precise legal and factual basis for her exclusion from the promotion order. In view of the continuing prejudice and the loss of deputation opportunities, the applicant also seeks appropriate interim protection, including expeditious consideration of her claim, so that the proceedings before this Tribunal do not render her grievance infructuous.
ANALYSIS
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully perused the pleadings and documents placed on record as well as the judgments on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the parties.
It emerges from the record and pleadings that the applicant is an officer of the Indian Revenue Service (Income Tax), 2016 Batch, appointed under the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) category and confirmed in service with effect from 29.08.2018. The Show Cause Notice dated 04.12.2024 questioning her entitlement to appointment under the PwBD category was quashed and set aside by this Tribunal vide judgment dated 09.12.2025 in O.A. No. 377 of 2025, with directions to grant consequential benefits. Thereafter, the CBDT issued Office Order No. 299 of 2025 dated 31.12.2025, promoting 266 officers of her batch to the grade of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax on an ad hoc basis with effect from 01.01.2026. However, the applicant was not included in the said promotion order, although officers immediately preceding and succeeding her in the batch sequence were promoted. Her representations dated 05.01.2026 and 21.04.2026 seeking consideration for promotion allegedly remain undecided. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant has filed the present O.A. seeking quashing of the promotion order to the extent of her exclusion, consideration for promotion with effect from 01.01.2026 with consequential benefits, and constitution of a Review DPC.
The principal issue that arises for consideration in the present O.A. is whether the respondents were justified in excluding the applicant from consideration for ad hoc promotion to the grade of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT)/Junior Administrative Grade, along with other officers of the Indian Revenue Service (Income Tax), 2016 Batch, vide Office Order No. 299 of 2025 dated 31.12.2025, particularly when the Show Cause Notice dated 04.12.2024, which questioned her entitlement to appointment under the PwBD category, had already been quashed and set aside by this Tribunal vide judgment dated 09.12.2025 passed in O.A. No. 377 of 2025.
It is not in dispute that the applicant belongs to the IRS (Income Tax), 2016 Batch and that 266 officers of the said batch were promoted to the grade of JCIT on an ad hoc basis with effect from 01.01.2026 or the date of assumption of charge, whichever was later. It is also the applicant's specific case that officers bearing Civil Code Nos. 16166 and 16168, immediately senior and junior to her, respectively, were included in the aforesaid promotion order, whereas her name was excluded.
The respondents have sought to justify the exclusion by submitting that the applicant was considered by the Screening Committee in its meeting held on 30.12.2025 and that the Committee recommended deferral of her promotion on administrative grounds, having regard to the complaint concerning the alleged irregularity in obtaining the benefit of reservation under the PwBD category. It is their contention that the Screening Committee was competent to assess the suitability of the officers concerned and that the applicant cannot claim promotion as a matter of right merely because other officers of her batch were promoted.
We find merit in the respondents’ submission to the limited extent that promotion cannot be claimed as an automatic entitlement merely upon fulfilment of the prescribed qualifying service. An employee has a right to fair and meaningful consideration for promotion in accordance with the applicable rules, and the assessment of suitability must ordinarily be undertaken by the competent authority. However, the discretion vested in the competent authority cannot be exercised arbitrarily, on irrelevant considerations, or in a manner that defeats a binding judicial determination.
In the present case, the relevant circumstance is that the Show Cause Notice dated 04.12.2024 had already been quashed and set aside by this Tribunal vide judgment dated 09.12.2025, prior to the meeting of the Screening Committee held on 30.12.2025 and the issuance of the impugned promotion order dated 31.12.2025. The respondents have not disputed this chronology. The applicant has further stated that the judgment dated 09.12.2025 was challenged by the respondents before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 13565/2026 titled Union of India & Ors. Vs. Vidyotma Singh, which was dismissed. For facility of reference, relevant portion of the aforesaid order of Hon’ble High Court reads as under:-
―20. Having heard learned Counsel, in our view, the approach of the Tribunal is eminently in sync with the philosophy of the RPWD Act read with the pronouncements of the Supreme Court on the issue.
21.We may note, at the cost of repetition, that there is no material cited in the show cause notice issued to the respondent to support the allegation that the respondent obtained her disability certificate from the VMCC and Safdarjung Hospital by fraudulent means. The certificate itself is not alleged to be fabricated. Ordinarily, it is difficult to believe that an institution such as the VMCC and Safdarjung Hospital would issue a disability certificate fraudulently.
22.The only basis on which fraud in obtaining the certificate is alleged in the show cause notice is the fresh medical examination conducted by the petitioner. There is no justification cited in the show cause notice for conducting the fresh medical examination. Besides, a disability certificate issued by the competent authority under the RPWD Act is entitled to pre-eminence under the provisions of the statute and cannot be sought to be questioned on the basis of an independent medical examination conducted later.
23.An illuminating discussion of the reason for this, is to be found in para 70 of Ravinder Kumar Dhaliwal v. Union of India in which Chandrachud J has observed:
―70. Section 2(s) of the RPwD Act defines the words ―person with disability‖ as ―person with a long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment which, in interaction with barriers, hinders his full and effective participation in the society equally with others‖. Section 2(c) defines barrier to mean ―any factor including communicational, cultural, economic, environmental, institutional, political, social, attitudinal or structural factors which hamper the full and effective participation of persons with disabilities in society‖. On a combined reading of the definitions provided in Sections 2(s) and 2(c) of the Act, it is evident that the RPwD — similar to the 2017 Act — defines ―disability‖ as a social construct and not solely as a medical construct. The Act does not define a mental impairment to solely constitute a disability. Rather, it defines disability based on the interaction of the impairment with the barriers which in effect hamper the effective participation of an individual.‖
(Emphasis supplied)
24.Thus, it is not the medical condition of a person which, by itself, renders him ―disabled‖ within the meaning of the RPwD Act, but the extent to which the condition interferes with his effective participation in society. A simple medical examination, conducted after a person has been employed after extending the benefit of the RPwD Act – in this case, 9 years after employment – cannot, therefore, override the certificate, and the benefit that flows from it.
25.At the cost of repetition, we are constrained to observe, with some degree of disquietude, that the fresh medical examination in the present case was conducted 9 years after the respondent joined service. Why, and in what circumstances, the petitioner decided, 9 years after the respondent had joined service, to subject her to a fresh medical examination, is unknown. At the very least, no such basis is available in the show cause notice issued to the respondent. We may go to the extent of holding that, even if the decision was bona fide, it is unjustified.
26.The approach of the Court, as well as of the executive authorities, while dealing with persons with disabilities, has to be qualitatively different from that which is adopted while dealing with other persons. A sensitive approach, in sync with the philosophy of the RPwD Act has to be adopted. This aspect has been reiterated, times without number, by the Supreme Court. The entire philosophy of the RPwD Act is one of reasonable accommodation and ensuring of the availability of meaningful avenues to provide optimum chances for persons with disabilities to perform to the best of their abilities. If, 9 years after a person has, with her, a duly issued certificate under the RPwD Act, issued by a competent authority and on the basis of which she is provided employment, she is to be subjected to inquiry proceedings on the basis of a purportedly independent medical examination which was conducted by the employer, we would be doing violence to the very basis and philosophy of the policy of emancipation of the differently abled, and would empower executive authorities to flagrantly disobey the provisions of the RPwD Act.
27.Apropos the submission that the Court should not interfere with inquiry proceedings at the very inception, it is well settled that, where the proceedings themselves are found to be misconceived in the sense that there is no basis forthcoming even on the basis of the material contained in the notice issued to the employee, a court can interfere without requiring the employee to be subjected to inquiry proceedings. In Union of India v. Upendra Singh, it has been held that if the allegations in a charge-sheet do not constitute misconduct, a Court can interfere even at that stage.
28.This principle would apply with all the more rigour where the employee concerned is a person suffering from disability.
29.We are sanguine that the afore-extracted circular dated 5 August 2024 can be invoked only in a case where there is prima facie material to indicate that the very obtaining of the disability certificate by the concerned candidate was fraudulent. It cannot be invoked in a case in which there is no such material, or merely on the basis of a subsequent medical examination, whether conducted by the authorities or by the employer.
30.In the present case, the respondent is in possession not of one but of two certificates, one by the VMCC and Safdarjung Hospital and the second by the RML Hospital, both of which were as per the statutory norms, each of which certified the respondent to be suffering from over 40% disability.
31.It is not the allegation of the petitioner that either of these certificates were fraudulently obtained.
32.In these circumstances, we are clear that the issuance of the show cause notice to the respondent cannot be sustained on the basis of the circular dated 5 August 2024 issued by the DOPT.
33.In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal acted well within its powers in setting aside the proceedings against the respondent following the issuance of show cause notice dated 4 December 2024.
34.We, therefore, do not find this to be a case meriting interference in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
35.The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.‖
The effect of the aforesaid judgment cannot be disregarded while examining the legality of the subsequent administrative action. Once the Show Cause Notice stood quashed and set aside, the respondents were required to give due effect to the judgment and extend the consequential benefits flowing therefrom, in accordance with its terms. They could not continue to treat the quashed notice as though it remained operative or constituted, by itself, a subsisting legal impediment to the applicant's service progression.
In this regard, the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. K.V. Jankiraman, reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109, are relevant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the sealed-cover procedure cannot ordinarily be resorted to merely on account of a preliminary investigation or allegations against an employee, and that the conditions prescribed for invoking such procedure must be satisfied. For facility of reference, the relevant paras of above judgment are reproduced as below:-
―8. The common questions involved in all these matters relate to what in service jurisprudence has come to be known as ―sealed cover procedure‖. Concisely stated, the questions are: (1) what is the date from which it can be said that disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against an employee? (2) What is the course to be, adopted when the employee is held guilty in such proceedings if the guilt merits punishment other than that of dismissal? (3) To what benefits an employee who is completely or partially exonerated is entitled to and from which date? ―sealed cover procedure‖ is adopted when an employee is due for promotion, increment etc. but disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against him at the relevant time and hence, the findings of his entitlement to the benefit are kept in a sealed cover to be opened after the proceedings in question are over’. Hence, the relevance and importance of the questions.‖
Similarly, in Dr. Ajit Kumar Shrivastava Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, in Civil Appeal Nos. 7805–7806 of 2022, decided on 21.10.2022, the Hon’ble Supreme Court found no justification for keeping an officer’s candidature in a sealed cover in the absence of departmental proceedings instituted or pending under the applicable rules.
The applicant’s case does not fall within any of the three situations [(i) Suspension: The officer is currently under suspension; (ii) Charge Sheet: A charge sheet has been issued and disciplinary proceedings are pending; and (iii) Criminal Prosecution: Prosecution for a criminal charge is pending in a court] contemplated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. K. V. Jankiraman, (1991) AIR SC 2010, in which the sealed cover procedure may be resorted to. It is submitted that the applicant was denied promotion merely on the ground that a show-cause notice had been issued to her. The mere issuance of a show-cause notice, in the absence of any pending disciplinary proceedings falling within the parameters prescribed by law, cannot, by itself, constitute a valid ground for withholding promotion, provided the applicant was otherwise found fit for promotion. In this regard, reliance is placed upon DoPT O.M. No. 22011/4/91-Estt. (A), dated 14.09.1992, issued pursuant to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. K. V. Jankiraman (supra), which prescribes the circumstances and procedure governing the adoption of the sealed cover procedure in cases of promotion of Government employees. Accordingly, the respondents’ action in denying promotion to the applicant solely on the basis of the issuance of a show-cause notice, without establishing the existence of any legally recognized impediment to her promotion, is stated to be unjustified and contrary to the aforesaid judgment and instructions.
At the same time, the aforesaid decisions do not dispense with the requirement of assessing the suitability of an officer for promotion in accordance with the applicable rules. Nor do they establish that every officer against whom no departmental charge-sheet is pending must necessarily be promoted. The question in the present case is whether the applicant’s exclusion was based on a lawful and relevant consideration, particularly in view of the prior judgment quashing the Show Cause Notice, and whether her case was considered in a fair and non-arbitrary manner.
The respondents have referred to paragraph 6.1.2 of the DoP&T Office Memorandum dated 10.04.1989 to contend that the Screening Committee enjoys discretion in devising an appropriate procedure for assessing suitability. We have no quarrel with the general proposition that the competent committee is vested with discretion in the matter of assessment. Nevertheless, such discretion must be exercised in accordance with the applicable rules and established legal principles. The existence of administrative discretion does not authorise the respondents to perpetuate the consequences of a proceeding that has already been quashed by a competent judicial forum without examining the legal effect of that judgment. In Sant Raj Vs. O.P. Singla, reported in (1985) 2 SCC 349, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that discretion must be guided by law, reason, and justice, rather than exercised arbitrarily or capriciously. This supports the proposition that the Screening Committee’s discretion remains subject to legal constraints.
We also find that the respondents have not placed any specific reason before us, on the basis of the material presently available, which adequately explains why the applicant alone was excluded while officers immediately senior and junior to her were promoted under the same office order. Although the respondents have stated that the Screening Committee considered the applicant's case and recommended deferral on administrative grounds, the mere description of the decision as one taken on administrative grounds does not, by itself, establish its legality. The basis of such a decision must be capable of scrutiny with reference to the applicable rules, the material considered and the binding judgment already rendered in the applicant's favour.
The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Sangram Keshari Nayak, reported in (2007) 6 SCC 704, also recognises that the right to consideration for promotion encompasses effective, purposeful and meaningful consideration, while the assessment of suitability remains within the domain of the competent authority. Therefore, the applicant’s grievance cannot be rejected merely on the ground that promotion is not an indefeasible right.
We are, however, unable to accept the applicant’s prayer for an immediate direction to promote her with effect from 01.01.2026. The record before us does not contain sufficient material to enable us to substitute our assessment for that of the competent authority regarding the applicant’s suitability for ad hoc promotion. The fact that the applicant’s immediate senior and junior have been promoted is a relevant circumstance requiring proper examination, but it does not, by itself, establish that she must necessarily be promoted irrespective of the applicable criteria.
Equally, the respondents cannot be permitted to rely upon the quashed Show Cause Notice as an independent subsisting impediment to the applicant’s promotion. If any distinct and legally relevant material exists which the competent authority is entitled to consider under the applicable rules, its relevance and legal effect must be examined independently, consistently with the judgment dated 09.12.2025 and the principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness. A mere repetition of the allegation forming the subject matter of the quashed notice, without such examination, would not constitute a sufficient justification for the applicant’s continued exclusion.
The applicant has also complained that her representations dated 05.01.2026 and 21.04.2026 have not been decided. The respondents have stated that the matter is under consideration. In view of the lapse of time and the continuing effect of the impugned decision upon the applicant’s service progression, we consider it appropriate that her grievance be examined expeditiously by the competent authority and that a reasoned decision be communicated to her.
The cumulative effect of the above circumstances lead to the conclusion that non-consideration of applicant’s claim to promotion would be oppressive, unfair and contrary to the principles underlying Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Where the above mentioned expectations are frustrated, and the relationship instead becomes a vehicle for sustained economic and emotional exploitation, the law cannot remain indifferent. In such circumstances, the imposition of financial liability whether through maintenance, compensation, or restitution- serves a legitimate legal purpose. It is not merely punitive, but corrective: aimed at restoring, as far as possible, the economic position and dignity of the aggrieved. This aligns with established jurisprudential principles that recognize equity, good faith, and obligation to act in a just and fair manner.
Jurisprudentially, there is a compelling case for expanding the scope of compensatory costs to include elements of restitution and equitable rebalancing. The doctrine of unjust enrichment provides that no person should benefit at another’s expense without lawful justification. Similarly, the principle of restitutio-in-integrum seeks to restore the injured party to the position they would have occupied but for the wrongdoing. When applied to the present case, these principles demand a broader, more nuanced approach. The law, therefore, intervenes not only to redress individual harm but also to uphold the normative ideal that justice within intimate relationships is neither illusory nor optional. For the aggrieved individual, the claim to compensation is not merely a financial demand- it reflects a deeper conception of justice as something inviolable and worthy of vindication. Where exploitation has been normalized under the guise of some duty, legal remedies serve to reaffirm that such expectations are neither lawful nor morally defensible. Such an approach aligns with the constitutional commitment to dignity and equality, ensuring that legal remedies remain responsive to lived realities. Ultimately, the law must evolve to recognize that justice in such matters is not merely symbolic but materially enforceable.
From a jurisprudential perspective, the gap between the litigation costs and compensatory costs highlights the tension between formal legal structures and substantive justice. Legal realism reminds us that law must respond to the prevailing realities (which are unaccounted and perverse) rather than remain confined to abstract doctrines. In the context of exploitation, this requires a shift from a purely needs-based framework to one that incorporates accountability and restitution. We are of the view that we must move beyond viewing the actions of respondents as taken in a particular matter insulated from rigorous legal scrutiny. Instead, they should recognize that power imbalances within an employee and employer (applicant and respondents in this case) can give rise to legally cognizable harm. By expanding the scope of remedies to include compensatory and restitutionary elements, the law could not only address the full spectrum of injury suffered by the aggrieved but also put restrictions on the respondents to act in a fair and just manner with due application of mind, failing which the scope of compensatory costs to include elements of restitution and equitable rebalancing could catch up with the one who does wrong and in this case respondents. Such an evolution would not only enhance the execution and upholding rule of law but would also reinforce foundational values by ensuring that it cannot be misused as a tool for exploitation.
The pursuit of justice within relationships as employee and employer in a welfare state presents unique challenges for legal systems. Unlike commercial transactions, the relationship between employee and employer are based on trust which is cemented by conducting one’s affairs as per Rule of law. Non application of these very features can create conditions for exploitation, particularly when one party exercises enormous power to punish. Equity, as a jurisprudential concept, offers a pathway forward. Rooted in principles of fairness and conscience, equity allows courts to tailor remedies to the specific circumstances of each case. In situations of economic abuse, this may involve not only compensating for direct losses but also addressing the broader consequences of dependency and dis-empowerment. This aligns with the moral intuition that justice requires both compensation for the victim and disgorgement from the wrongdoer.
In conclusion, the evolution of legal principles in this area is not merely desirable but necessary. As societal understandings in such matters continue to change, so too must the law adapt to ensure that justice remains both relevant and effective. In the context of the lived realities of 2026, courts are required to adopt a proactive and progressive approach in adjudicating such matters, ensuring that legal remedies evolve in step with contemporary forms of harm and exploitation so as to uphold Rule of Law and sensitize the respondents to act in a fair and just manner while discharging their duties, such an approach will not only deep root democracy but also put an effective check on the utmost careless and non application of mind by the respondents authorities.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Tribunal is constrained to observe that the respondents have dealt with the matter in an insensitive, casual and indifferent manner, displaying a complete lack of due diligence and sensitivity towards the serious issues involved. Such an apathetic approach on the part of the respondents, particularly in handling a matter of considerable sensitivity, is wholly unacceptable and cannot be countenanced. The conduct of the respondents reflects a “could not care less” attitude towards their obligations and the consequences of their inaction.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the applicant has made out a case for judicial intervention to ensure lawful reconsideration of her claim for promotion. The appropriate relief, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, would be to direct the respondents to reconsider her claim in accordance with the applicable rules, without treating the quashed Show Cause Notice dated 04.12.2024 as a subsisting disqualification, and to record the reasons for their decision.
Accordingly, the present O.A. is allowed with the following directions:
In so far as non-consideration of promotion of applicant is concerned, order dated 31.12.2025 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the promotion of applicant and in the event, the applicant is found suitable and entitled to promotion with effect from the relevant date, the respondents shall pass appropriate consequential orders regarding her promotion, seniority and all other admissible service benefits in accordance with the applicable rules.
The above exercise shall be completed by the respondents within 04 (Four) weeks from the date of certified copy of this Order.
Accordingly, this Tribunal deems it appropriate to impose costs of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand Only) upon the respondents, which shall be deposited with the Prime Ministers’ National Relief Fund (PMNRF) within a period of 06 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. The respondents shall place on record proof of such deposit within the aforesaid period.
The respondents are also directed to file a compliance affidavit within 08 (eight) weeks from the date of certified copy of this Order.
Pending M.A.(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.