Revised Promotion Ratio Can't Be Applied Retroactively As Reversal Of Benefits Received By Promoted Officers Causes Administrative Disruption: Delhi High Court

Background Facts

The employees were previously appointed as Inspectors. They sought promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner Group 'A' service from three feeder categories in group 'B' services for Superintendent Central Excise, Superintendent Customs Preventive and Customs Appraisers.

The Supreme Court's judgment dated August 3, 2011, directed the government to revise the promotion rules and quotas that reflects the changes in cadre strength and ensures equal promotional opportunities for all feeder categories. The employees contended that, based on the revised cadre strength, the promotion ratio should have been 13:2:1 (Superintendents of Central Excise: Superintendents of Customs Preventive: Customs Appraisers) instead of the previous 6:1:2 ratio. Although the Supreme Court and the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) had given instructions, the UOI did not update the promotion rules on time, leading to significant delays in employees' promotions.

The employees argued that the updated promotion ratio should be applied retroactively, starting from 2002, when they first became eligible for promotions. They claimed that if the new ratio had been implemented sooner, they would have been promoted to the rank of Assistant Commissioner much earlier.

The employees filed an application (I.A No. 1198/2005), requesting clarification on whether the 13:2:1 promotion ratio under the amended Recruitment Rules would be applied retroactively. The Supreme Court dismissed the application, stating that the employees were essentially requesting a review of its previous order from August 3, 2011, and saw no reason to interfere with it, as doing so would reopen the entire case. However, the Court allowed the employees to approach the Administrative Tribunal or make a fresh representation to the Union of India.

The employees initially approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The Tribunal noted that although the employees repeatedly sought retrospective implementation of the Recruitment Rules formulated after the Supreme Court's 2012 directions, the Court had not specified whether the new 13:2:1 ratio should apply retrospectively or prospectively. The Supreme Court had instead instructed all parties to make a representation to the respondents, who would then formulate and implement a policy. The CAT dismissed their case, stating that the rules could not be applied retrospectively.

Aggrieved by the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), the employees filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court.

It was argued by the employees that the promotion ratio among the three feeder categories was unfairly biased in favour of the Customs Appraisers. While the employees had been stuck in their positions for years, officers from the Customs Appraisers category, who were junior to them, were being promoted much more quickly. This was because of the outdated 6:1:2 promotion ratio, which the employees claimed no longer represented the actual workforce distribution.

The Union of India (UOI) maintained that the amended 13:2:1 promotion ratio, which was implemented in 2012, was intended to be applied prospectively rather than retroactively. They emphasised that adopting the new ratio retrospectively would be difficult because some officers had already earned ad hoc promotions, while others who were promoted in 1997 had retired or promoted to higher posts.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the court that the reversal of promotions could cause significant issues. Since 1997, promotions to the Junior Time Scale (JTS) were made without the 13:2:1 ratio, so applying it retrospectively would lead to discrepancies in promotions across the three feeder cadres. Many officers promoted on an ad-hoc basis since 1997 have either retired or been further promoted to higher positions. Reviewing these promotions after 14 years could result in the reversion of many officers still in service, creating personnel problems. Such reversion could lead to administrative disruption, potentially slowing revenue collection and causing financial losses.

It was noted by the court that despite repeated appeals to the Supreme Court by both sides, the Court had never ordered the implementation of the new ratio from a retrospective date. Many affected officers were not parties to the case, and most had either retired or been promoted. If the petition were granted, it would lead to the reversal of benefits already received by these officers, causing significant disruption.

It was held by the court that the revised promotion ratio of 13:2:1 was intended to be applied prospectively, starting from the date of its notification in 2012. It was concluded that the petition lacked merit after all available remedies had been explored. As a result, the petition was dismissed due to the absence of sufficient grounds.

Case No. : W.P.(C) 7444/2024

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sumita Hazarika and Mansi Mehta, Advocates.

Counsel for the Respondents : A.K. Trivedi, Dhruv Kothari and Shipra Yadav, Advocates.

D Shashank Bajpai, CGSC with Mr. Rudra Paliwal, Government Pleader for UOI.

Ravinder Agarwal, Advocate for R-4.