Madras High Court Allows Union of India's Writ Challenging CAT Order for Ad Hoc Promotions Consideration. Ad Hoc Promotions Do Not Confer Right to Further Promotion Without Final Seniority List.

High Court: Madras High Court In Favour of Prosecution
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Union of India, through the Secretary, Department of Revenue and the Commissioner of Central Excise, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madras High Court challenging an order dated 10.03.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench in O.A.No.1152/2013. The first respondent, T.S. Jeyachandar, a retired Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, had filed the original application seeking relief to be promoted as Additional Commissioner in the Non-Functional Financial Upgradation (NFSG) grade/scale notionally along with the 1990 batch of Assistant Commissioners, or alternatively to upgrade his pay to NFSG grade/scale under the DOPT order with effect from 01.07.2006, or to promote him as Additional Commissioner in the pay of NFSG as he had completed 13 years of service as Assistant Commissioner. The first respondent was appointed on 18.09.1974, promoted as Appraiser on 24.03.1983, and subsequently promoted to Assistant Commissioner on ad hoc basis from 17.01.1990, Deputy Commissioner on ad hoc basis from 17.01.1994, and Joint Commissioner on ad hoc basis from 29.04.2005. He voluntarily retired from service with effect from 31.10.2008, which was accepted by the Department vide Notification No.50/2008 dated 23.10.2008. The petitioners contended that the first respondent's name was not found in the final seniority list published pursuant to court orders, and ad hoc promotions during litigation did not confer any right to further promotion. The Tribunal had not considered the factual issue of finalization of seniority list. The first respondent argued that he held the post of Assistant Commissioner from 17.01.1990 and should be considered for Additional Commissioner on completion of 13 years, as ad hoc promotions were granted to others. The High Court examined the facts and held that ad hoc promotions do not confer a right to further promotion, and the seniority list was not finalized. Moreover, the first respondent had voluntarily retired, and no direction for promotion could be granted after retirement. The court also noted that NFSG is a financial upgradation, not a promotion. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and the Tribunal's order was quashed.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Ad Hoc Promotion - Right to Further Promotion - Ad hoc promotions granted during pendency of litigation do not confer any right to claim further promotion to a higher post - The final seniority list is the basis for determining eligibility for promotion - Held that the Tribunal's direction to consider the applicant for promotion as Additional Commissioner was not sustainable as the seniority list was not finalized (Paras 2-6).

B) Service Law - Voluntary Retirement - Effect on Promotion Claims - An employee who voluntarily retires from service cannot claim promotion after retirement - The first respondent voluntarily retired on 31.10.2008, which was accepted by the Department - Held that no direction for promotion can be granted after retirement (Paras 4, 6).

C) Service Law - Non-Functional Financial Upgradation (NFSG) - Distinction from Promotion - NFSG is a financial upgradation scheme and not a promotion - The claim for NFSG grade/scale is distinct from promotion to the post of Additional Commissioner - Held that the Tribunal's order directing consideration for promotion was erroneous (Paras 3, 6).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether ad hoc promotions granted during pendency of litigation confer a right to further promotion to the post of Additional Commissioner, and whether the Tribunal erred in directing consideration of promotion without a finalized seniority list.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition is allowed. The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench dated 10.03.2023 in O.A.No.1152/2013 is quashed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Law Points

  • Ad hoc promotion does not confer right to further promotion
  • Final seniority list is essential for promotion claims
  • Non-functional financial upgradation is distinct from promotion
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (MAD) (06) 36

Writ Petition No.22221 of 2023 and W.M.P.No.21606 of 2023

2026-06-08

S. M. Subramaniam, R. Kalaimathi

Mr.K.Srinivasamurthy, Senior Panel Counsel for petitioners; Mr.Karthikrajan for M/s.Menon, Karthik, Mukundan & Neelakandan for R1

The Secretary, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi and The Commissioner of Central Excise, Central Revenue Building, 5a, Main Road, Ranchi

T.S.Jeyachandar, Joint Commissioner of Central Excise (Retired), No.11, 51st Street, Ashok Nagar, Chennai-600083 and The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, City Civil Court Building, Chennai 600104

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench dated 10.03.2023 in O.A.No.1152/2013.

Remedy Sought

The petitioners (Union of India) sought issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to quash the Tribunal's order.

Filing Reason

The petitioners contended that the Tribunal did not consider that the first respondent's name was not in the final seniority list and ad hoc promotions did not confer a right to further promotion.

Previous Decisions

The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, by order dated 10.03.2023 in O.A.No.1152/2013, had directed consideration of the first respondent's claim for promotion.

Issues

Whether ad hoc promotions granted during pendency of litigation confer a right to further promotion to the post of Additional Commissioner? Whether the Tribunal erred in directing consideration of promotion without a finalized seniority list? Whether a voluntarily retired employee can claim promotion after retirement?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners: The first respondent's name was not in the final seniority list; ad hoc promotions do not confer any right to further promotion; the Tribunal failed to consider the factual issue of finalization of seniority list. First respondent: He held the post of Assistant Commissioner from 17.01.1990 and completed 13 years of service, thus entitled to be considered for Additional Commissioner on par with juniors; ad hoc promotions were granted to others.

Ratio Decidendi

Ad hoc promotions granted during pendency of litigation do not confer any right to further promotion. The final seniority list is the basis for determining eligibility for promotion. An employee who voluntarily retires cannot claim promotion after retirement. Non-functional financial upgradation is distinct from promotion.

Judgment Excerpts

Ad hoc promotions granted during the pendency of litigations would not confer any right to the first respondent to claim further promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise. The first respondent voluntarily retired from service with effect from 31.10.2008, which was accepted by the Department vide Notification No.50/2008 dated 23.10.2008.

Procedural History

The first respondent filed O.A.No.1152/2013 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, which was allowed on 10.03.2023. The Union of India challenged that order by filing Writ Petition No.22221 of 2023 before the Madras High Court, which was heard and disposed of on 08.06.2026.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Contempt Notice Against Court Receiver in Specific Performance Suit — No Willful Disobedience Established. Filing of Clarification Application by Receiver Held Not Contemptuous Under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Allows Union of India's Writ Challenging CAT Order for Ad Hoc Promotions Consideration. Ad Hoc Promotions Do Not Confer Right to Further Promotion Without Final Seniority List.