Delhi High Court Allows Promotion Of Senior Employees Whose Qualifying Service Fell Short On Account Of Administrative Delay In Appointment

The Delhi High Court while allowing promotion of two Senior Employees held that it was administrative delay in their appointment that led to insufficient qualifying service and no fault can be attributed to them.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition challenging the Order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal directing the Government to grant promotion to the Petitioner-Senior Employees.

The Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain observed, "Admittedly, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 are senior to respondent no. 3 in the selection process. It was only because of the administrative reasons of the petitioners, that the respondent no. 3 was issued the appointment letter before the same could be issued to respondent nos. 1 and 2. It is not the case of the petitioners that the delay was caused by respondent nos. 1 and 2 in any manner.....in our view, the learned Tribunal has rightly given the above directions to the petitioners."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Himanshu Pathak, while the Respondent was represented by Central Government Standing Counsel Syed Abdul Haseeb.

Facts of the Case

The two Senior Employees were selected as Indian Ordnance Factories Service (IOFS) officer in 2006 batch. Although they were selected in 2007, their appointment letters were issued only in 2008. The other employee, though junior, was given the appointment letter earlier, pursuant to which he joined duties in 2007 only. The delay in issuance of the appointment letters to the Senior Employees has been admitted by the Government Department to be not attributable to them but only to administrative reasons, like the time taken in the verification of documents, etc.

They were aggrieved by the fact that the junior employee was promoted to the post of Junior Administrative Grade (JAG) after the relaxation of the eligibility criteria, while they were declared ineligible for the same.

Reasoning By Court

The Court rejected the submission of Counsel for Petitioner that no fault could have been found with the DPC for not recommending the two for promotion as they didn't meet the required criteria holding that the Senior Employees were not at fault for their service beginning late and therefore cannot be deprived of the benefit.

The Petition was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Union of India & Anr. v. Amit Kumar Yadav & Ors. (2025:DHC:9293-DB)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocates Himanshu Pathak, Amit Singh

Respondent- Central Government Standing Counsel Syed Abdul Haseeb, Advocate Nasreen

Click here to read/ download Order