The Delhi High Court has upheld a retired environment ministry scientist’s right to have his promotion backdated to the date he became eligible, because the ministry’s own delay in holding the assessment cannot be used against him. It has also held that a court below the Supreme Court cannot lay down that its own judgment “cannot be cited as a precedent”.
Where a promotion under a merit-based in situ scheme is delayed because the department did not hold the assessment on the due dates, the employee is entitled to promotion from the date of eligibility, and the rule against retrospective promotion cannot be used by the department to profit from its own delay. If the employee has retired in the meantime, the requirement of an interview can be dispensed with, but not the assessment on the other parameters. Only the Supreme Court can direct that its decision is not to be treated as a precedent, and a Tribunal or High Court cannot do so.
Om Prakash joined as Scientist B in 2002 and was promoted in situ to Scientist C under the Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS) from 2 July 2007, and retired on 30 June 2013. He said that he became eligible for Scientist C on 1 January 2006 and for Scientist D on 1 January 2010. The ministry’s own Office Memorandum of 13 August 2013 listed him for such ante-dating, but the DoPT said in 2014 that this needed the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet’s approval. The Tribunal allowed his application in January 2024, and the Union of India challenged this in the High Court. It argued that the Rules bar “retrospective in situ promotion” and that the FCS is a merit-based scheme with ACR screening and an interview. Justices C. Hari Shankar and Vinod Kumar upheld the order, with a caveat. They held that the case is covered by the Supreme Court’s S.K. Murti ruling, under which the date of promotion under the FCS is the date of eligibility, since the Assessment Board is bound to meet twice a year and “nobody can take advantage of his own wrong”, and by the Delhi High Court’s Nakul Dev ruling. For Scientist C, the claim was therefore fully covered. For Scientist D, he was never assessed, and the court held that the assessment cannot be dispensed with, but since he had retired because of the ministry’s delay, only the interview can be dispensed with. His promotion to Scientist D from 1 January 2010 is therefore subject to his being found suitable on the ACR parameters. The court also said that the Tribunal’s caveat in Nakul Dev, that its decision “cannot be cited as a precedent”, is not permitted for any court lower than the Supreme Court, which is bound by Article 141. A court may say that it decides on its peculiar facts, but not bar future citation.
Citation: Union of India & Anr. v. Om Prakash, W.P.(C) 5071/2025 (with CM APPL. 23239/2025 and 23242/2025), Delhi High Court (Justices C. Hari Shankar and Vinod Kumar), decided on 15.10.2026 | 2026:DHC:9162-DB
Leave a Reply