NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIAversusG ATHIPATHI AND OTHERS

                     [2024] 12 S.C.R. 520 : 2024 INSC 943

                     National Highway Authority of India1
                                     v.
                           G Athipathi and Others
                             (Civil Appeal No. 14100 of 2024)
                                       09 December 2024
     [Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,* JJ.]


                                    Issue for Consideration
       Issue arose as regards the criteria for promotion to the post of
       Deputy General Manager in the appellant-authority; and whether
       the respondent has to be treated as a fresh entrant with the benefit
       of his past service on deputation or he has to be treated as a fresh
       appointee, from the date he was selected.

                                              Headnotes†
       Service law – Promotion – Counting of deputation service
       period for promotion – Respondent repatriated to parent
       department after his deputation in appellant-authority for
       6 years – Respondent re-joined the appellant on direct
       recruitment basis to the post of Manager (Technical) after
       a gap of 1 year – Thereafter, the appellant-Authority invited
       applications from the Managers for promotion to the post
       of Deputy General Manager – Application of the respondent
       rejected due to minimum experience criteria of 4 years not
       being met – Challenge to – Tribunal directed the Authority
       to count the deputation service period for promotion and
       pursuant thereto, the respondent was appointed – High Court
       upheld the said order of tribunal – Correctness:
       Held: Past services can be taken into consideration only when
       the Rules permit the same or where a special situation exists,
       which would entitle the employee to obtain such benefit of
       past service – Circular would not confer any legal right on the
       respondent for consideration for promotion to the post of Deputy
       General Manager (Technical) with effect from the date from
       which the tribunal directed the appellant-authority to promote


1     To be read as ‘National Highways Authority of India’.
* Author
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                           521

    National Highway Authority of India v. G Athipathi and Others


     the respondent to the said post – Repatriation of the respondent
     back to his parent Department was on full time basis and
     unconnected with the appellant-authority – Respondent was a
     fresh and new recruit into the service of the appellant-authority
     directly to the post of the Manager (Technical), totally unrelated/
     unconnected to his previous service with the appellant-authority,
     which transaction was complete and reached finality when the
     respondent was repatriated to his parent department – As he had
     been repatriated to his parent department more than a year prior
     to such permanent appointment, it cannot be termed ‘absorption’
     which finds mention in the Clause 6 of the Circular – Respondent
     does not stand in the same queue in which other persons were,
     as they were working with the appellant-authority at the relevant
     time – Object of Clause 6 was to obliterate the difference between
     a person working on deputation and a person regularly working –
     Respondent was absent from the service of the appellant-authority
     not for any of the specific purposes, but on a permanent basis-being
     sent back to his parent department – In ‘fulfilling administrative
     formalities-submission/ acceptance of technical resignation/
     retirement etc’ would not cover situation of respondent – Decision
     taken by the appellant-authority not to grant promotion to the
     respondent to be upheld – Respondent could not have been
     considered for promotion from the date of issuance of circular
     inviting applications to the posts of Deputy General Manager as
     per the direction of the tribunal since he had not completed four
     years on the post of the Manager (Technical) after having joined
     pursuant to direct recruitment on such post, on which service
     could only be reckoned from date of his appointment to the post –
     Impugned Order as also tribunal’s order cannot be sustained and
     set aside – Respondent to be considered for promotion in terms
     of the Recruitment Regulations and the Circular. [Paras 23-29]

                              Case Law Cited
     National Highways Authority of India v. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma,
     2016 SCC OnLine Del 2698; Indu Shekhar Singh v. State of Uttar
     Pradesh [2006] Supp. 1 SCR 497 : (2006) 8 SCC 129 – referred to.

                                List of Acts
     National Highways Authority of India (Recruitment, Seniority and
     Promotion) Regulations, 1996.
522                                                            [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


                               List of Keywords

       Criteria for promotion; Post of Deputy General Manager; Benefit of
       past service on deputation; Fresh appointee; Promotion; Counting
       of deputation service period for promotion; Repatriation; Deputation;
       Direct recruitment; Post of Manager (Technical); Minimum
       experience criteria; Parent Department; Absorption; Minutes of the
       Executive Committee; Absent from service; Fulfilling administrative
       formalities; Permanent basis; Submission/acceptance of technical
       resignation/retirement.

                              Case Arising From

       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.14100 of 2024

       From the Judgment and Order dated 01.03.2023 of the High Court
       of Judicature at Madras in WP No. 11060 of 2021

                           Appearances for Parties

       Santosh Kumar-I, Arjun Singh Bhati, Advs. for the Appellant.

       A. Lakshminarayanan, Adv. for the Respondents.

                  Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                   Judgment

       Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.

       Leave granted.
2.     Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and
       Mr. A. Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.
3.     The present appeal arises from the Final Judgment and Order dated
       01.03.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”), passed
       by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras
       (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”) in W.P. No.11060 of 2021,
       whereby the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed and the
       judgment dated 30.12.2020 rendered by the Central Administrative
       Tribunal, Chennai Bench (hereinafter referred to as the “CAT”) in
       O.A. No.310/01633/202W0 was upheld.
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                          523

     National Highway Authority of India v. G Athipathi and Others


     THE FACTUAL SETTING:
4.   The respondent no.1 was initially working as an Assistant Engineer
     in the service of the Government of Tamil Nadu. The appellant, by
     an order dated 27.05.2008, appointed him on deputation basis as
     Manager (Technical) with effect from 21.05.2008, initially for a period
     of three years. He worked continuously for a period of six years till
     13.06.2014, when he was repatriated to the parent department viz. the
     Highways & Minor Ports Department, Government of Tamil Nadu. In
     the meantime, an advertisement dated 15.03.2014 had been issued
     by the appellant inviting applications for recruitment to the post of
     Manager (Technical) on direct recruitment basis. The respondent
     no.1, on 11.04.2014, had applied for the said post after receiving
     approval from the parent department. Subsequent to his repatriation,
     he appeared in the written examination on 23.08.2014 and was
     selected as Manager (Technical) vide order dated 11.09.2014 by the
     appellant. On 26.08.2015, the respondent no.1 joined as Manager
     (Technical). The order of appointment of respondent no.1 was passed
     by the appellant on 02.09.2015 with effect from 26.08.2015.
5.   The post of Manager (Technical) is the feeding cadre for promotion to
     the post of Deputy General Manager (Technical). As per the Schedule
     appended to the National Highways Authority of India (Recruitment,
     Seniority and Promotion) Regulations, 1996 (hereinafter referred to
     as the “Recruitment Regulations”), promotion to the post of Deputy
     General Manager (Technical) may be made from candidates holding
     the post of Manager (Technical) for a period of at least 4 years.
     As such, a Circular was issued by the appellant on 22.05.2017
     (hereinafter referred to as the “Circular”) inviting applications from
     all eligible Managers (Technical) for promotion to the post of Deputy
     General Manager (Technical). Clause 6 of the said Circular is
     extracted hereunder:
          “6. It has also been decided to treat the deputation service
          (if any) rendered on the post of Manager (Technical) in
          NHAI as regular service for the purpose of promotion to
          the post of DGM (Technical). It has also been decided
          that the Manager (Technical), when found suitable
          for promotion, shall be promoted to the post of DGM
          (Technical) notionally with effect from the date they fulfil
          the eligibility criteria for the promotion, but not before the
524                                                         [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


            date of absorption and the date of promotion of applicants
            in OA 3696/2014 and 3762/2014 i.e. dated 29.12.2014,
            subject to recommendations of the Selection Committee.
            The actual promotion shall take effect from the date of
            assumption of charge against the post of DGM (Technical).”
6.     The issue of considering deputation service as regular service for
       promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager (Technical) was
       deliberated on in a Meeting of the Executive Committee of the
       appellant held on 12.10.2017. The decision thereon, as recorded in
       the Minutes of Meeting dated 20.10.2017, is reproduced hereunder:
            “(c) As a strict one time measure and a special case, the
            deputation service (including period of absence from NHAI
            for fulfilling administrative formalities e.g. submission/
            acceptance of technical resignation / retirement etc.) will
            be treated as regular service for the purpose of reckoning
            eligibility for the promotion to the post of DGM (Tech.), in
            respect of Managers (Tech.) who have subsequently been
            appointed in NHAI on Direct Recruitment basis as Manager
            (Tech.). This will also end prolonged litigation and ensure
            fairness and justice to the candidates who chose to face
            competition by going for direct recruitment.”
7.     The respondent no.1 applied for promotion to the post of Deputy
       General Manager (Technical). The Screening Committee of the
       appellant declared him ‘not eligible’. Accordingly, a promotion
       order dated 26.09.2017 was passed by the appellant in respect of
       thirty-nine Managers (Technical) to the posts of Deputy General
       Managers (Technical). Thereafter, the respondent no.1 sent
       Representations dated 18.06.2018, 22.11.2018 and 24.04.2019 to the
       appellant to consider his candidature. As no decision was taken on the
       same, he approached the CAT by way of O.A. No.310/00992/2019,
       which was disposed of vide order dated 26.07.2019. The CAT directed
       the appellant to consider the representations supra in light of the
       Circular and pass a speaking order within four months.
8.     After considering the Representations of respondent no.1, the
       appellant vide order dated 05.11.2019 observed that his case may
       not be treated as similar to that of three other officers, since, those
       officers had appeared in the direct recruitment examination of Manager
       (Technical) while working in the appellant whereas respondent no.1
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                      525

     National Highway Authority of India v. G Athipathi and Others


     had taken the examination after his repatriation and was working
     in his parent department. Aggrieved, the respondent no.1 again
     approached the CAT by filing O.A. No.310/01633/2020 and praying:
          “To call for the records pertaining to the impugned Office
          Order No. 11041/242/2017-Adm.II (Pt) dated 05.11.2019
          of the 4th Respondent and quash the same and direct
          the Respondents to count the applicant’s deputation
          service from 21.05.2008 to 13.06.2014 for promotion as
          Deputy General Manager (T) and to promote the applicant
          as Deputy General Manager as was done in respect of
          three similarly placed officers on and with effect from
          27.10.2017 and as General Manager (T) with effect from
          27.04.2018 along with all other services and monetary
          benefits including pay fixation, seniority, etc., and pass
          such further or other orders as the Hon’ble Tribunal may
          be deem fit proper under the facts and circumstances of
          the case and thus render justice.”
9.   The CAT, after hearing parties and considering the material on record,
     vide order dated 30.12.2020 allowed the Original Application filed by
     the respondent no.1. It directed the appellant to count the respondent
     no.1’s deputation service period from 21.05.2008 to 13.06.2014 for
     promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager (Technical) and to
     promote him as Deputy General Manager (Technical) with effect from
     27.10.2017 with all consequential benefits. The appellant was further
     directed to consider his case for promotion to the post of General
     Manager (Technical) as per rules. In compliance of the CAT’s order,
     respondent no.1 was promoted to the post of Deputy General Manager
     (Technical) on 07.06.2021. The appellant challenged the CAT order
     dated 30.12.2020 in the High Court through W.P. No. 11060 of 2021,
     which has been dismissed by the High Court vide the Impugned
     Order dated 01.03.2023.

     SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANT:
10. It was submitted by the learned counsel that the High Court failed to
    consider that as per the Schedule to the Recruitment Regulations,
    promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager (Technical)
    inter alia, could be made by promoting candidates continuously
    holding the post of Manager (Technical) for a period of at least
526                                                         [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       four years. It was pointed out that the respondent no.1 joined the
       appellant on deputation basis and worked till 13.06.2014, when he
       was repatriated to his parent department. Thereafter, the respondent
       no.1 re-joined the appellant on direct recruitment basis to the post of
       Manager (Technical) on 26.08.2015 i.e., after a gap of 1 year and 2
       months. It was argued that the service rendered by the respondent
       no.1 on deputation basis could not be considered due to this gap
       and in view of the same, he could be eligible for promotion to the
       post of Deputy General Manager (Technical) only after four years of
       service from the date of appointment on direct recruitment basis i.e.,
       26.08.2015. Thus, the respondent no.1 was ineligible for promotion
       as on 27.07.2017 i.e., the date from which the CAT has directed
       the appellant to promote the respondent no.1 to the post of Deputy
       General Manager (Technical).
11. Learned counsel contended that the respondent no.1 and other
    candidates on deputation service on the post of Manager (Technical)
    cannot be considered equally for promotion to the post of Deputy
    General Manager (Technical) as, on the date of direct recruitment
    examination, i.e., 23.08.2014, the respondent no.1 was not incumbent
    as a Manager (Technical) as he was already repatriated to his
    parent department. Whereas, the three other candidates, with whom
    respondent no.1 claims parity, were continuing in the service of the
    appellant as on the date of the written examination for the post of
    Manager (Technical).
12. It was next submitted that the High Court failed to consider that neither
    the Recruitment Regulations nor the decision of the 320th Executive
    Committee meeting dated 12.10.2017, regularize any extended period
    of absence and rather, had only condoned a period for administrative
    reasons which is only 20 days in the case of the respondent no.1. It
    was submitted that this period of 20 days has been regularized by
    the appellant, however, the period from 13.06.2014 to 26.08.2015
    wherein the respondent no.1 was under the administrative control
    of his parent department cannot be considered for promotion to the
    post of Deputy General Manager (Technical) as per the Recruitment
    Regulations. In view of the same, the Screening Committee had
    rejected the application of respondent no.1.
13. It was further submitted that the Circular was issued on the basis of
    the decision of the Delhi High Court in W.P. (Civil) No.9227 of 2014
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                         527

     National Highway Authority of India v. G Athipathi and Others


     titled National Highways Authority of India v Sanjeev Kumar
     Sharma.2 In the aforementioned case, the Delhi High Court vide
     order dated 05.04.2016 had observed that the petitioners therein
     had no gap in service. Thus, the Circular did not contemplate the
     regularization of any gap in the service.
14. Next, it was submitted that promotion was through a selection process
    and not based on seniority. Regulation 12(2) of the Recruitment
    Regulations provides that, on receipt of applications, the Screening
    Committee shall screen the applications with respect to the eligibility
    criteria prescribed for the post, and recommend the eligible candidates
    for consideration of the Selection Committee for final selection on
    the basis of written test or interview or as decided by the Selection
    Committee. It was pointed out that 93 applications were received
    for the post in question, out of which only 64 candidates were
    declared eligible and 29 candidates, including the respondent no.1
    were declared ineligible. Thereafter, interview was conducted of
    the eligible candidates and promotion order dated 26.09.2017 was
    issued whereby out of the 64 candidates, only 39 were promoted
    to the posts of Deputy General Manager (Technical). Thus, it was
    submitted, that even if it is assumed that the respondent no.1 was
    fulfilling the eligibility criteria, the CAT in the order dated 30.12.2020
    and the High Court in the Impugned Order could not have issued
    directions for appointment of the respondent no.1 as Deputy General
    Manager (Technical). It was submitted that directions could only have
    been issued for considering the respondent no.1 for promotion to the
    post in question. Prayer was, accordingly, made to allow this appeal.

     SUBMISSIONS BY RESPONDENT NO.1:
15. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 (sole contesting
    respondent) submitted that the CAT has held that there was no
    requirement in the Recruitment Regulations or the Circular that a
    candidate who had finished the qualifying service of four years must
    fulfill the additional requirement of being absorbed into the appellant
    without any break. It was submitted that this order of CAT has been
    upheld by the Impugned Order, observing that the Circular was clear
    and unambiguous that deputation service was to be considered and


2   2016 SCC OnLine Del 2698
528                                                       [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


       did not provide that the person must continue to be on deputation
       or be absorbed for that service to be considered.
16. It was further submitted that the appellant had failed to make any
    case for interference with the well-reasoned orders of the CAT and
    the High Court. Admittedly, the respondent no.1 had served on
    deputation basis for six years without a break, which is well beyond
    the requirement of four years. It was submitted that he had to return
    to the parent department as the maximum period of deputation was
    over but returned to the appellant at the earliest opportunity on direct
    recruitment basis after clearing the examination. It was submitted
    that his compliance with the service rules governing his deputation
    at the relevant time should not be held against him.
17. Learned counsel contended that if the appellant’s submissions are
    accepted, then even persons who joined the appellant in 2013 but
    just happened to be in service on the date of the Circular would be
    eligible for promotion, but the respondent no.1 would not be despite
    having joined in 2008. This would be manifestly arbitrary and unfair.
    Further, as noted by CAT, the appellant granted the benefit of the
    Circular to three other candidates but only in the respondent no.1’s
    case, the Circular and the Executive Committee decision has not
    been applied, which is discriminatory. It was pointed out that even
    these three other candidates are junior to the respondent no.1 and
    have joined in 2010-11.
18. Next, it was submitted that the concept of ‘break in service’ is
    inapplicable in the instant case as the qualifying service of four years
    has admittedly been met. As noted by the CAT and High Court, the
    appellant’s contention amounts to inserting an additional requirement
    into the Circular, which is not supported by the plain language of
    the Recruitment Regulations, Circular or the Executive Committee
    decision. It was further submitted that the decision in Sanjeev Kumar
    Sharma (supra) relied on by the appellants would not help their
    case, as the question of ‘break in service’ or ‘absorption’ was not
    an issue before the Delhi High Court. For these reasons, learned
    counsel sought dismissal of the appeal.

       ANALYSIS, REASONING & CONCLUSION:
19. Having given our anxious thought, we find that two basic issues need
    to be addressed before arriving at a final conclusion.
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                        529

    National Highway Authority of India v. G Athipathi and Others


20. Firstly, and most importantly, as to what would be the criteria for
    considering such one-time promotion to the post of Deputy General
    Manager (Technical) in terms of the Circular dated 22.05.2017, and;
    secondly, as to whether the respondent no.1 fulfils such criteria on
    the relevant date.
21. In the Circular, the language of Clause 6 is very clear and stipulates
    that a person’s deputation service, if any, rendered on the post of
    Manager (Technical) in the appellant shall be treated as regular
    service for the purposes of promotion to the post of Deputy General
    Manager (Technical) and such promotion would be notional with
    effect from the date he fulfils the eligibility criteria of promotion but
    not before the date of absorption of applicants in OA Nos.3696/2014
    and 3762/2014 orders dated 29.12.2014, subject to recommendations
    of the Selection Committee.
22. From the above, it is clear that the period of deputation is also to
    be considered while considering such promotion but the question
    lies in the fact that whether a person, who before coming into effect
    of Clause 6, stood repatriated to his parent department and was
    no more in the service of the appellant can take advantage of the
    said Clause.
23. In the present case, respondent no.1 was initially appointed as
    Manager (Technical) on deputation by order dated 27.05.2008 and
    worked as such till 13.06.2014. Thereafter, he was repatriated to his
    parent department namely the Highways & Minor Ports Department,
    Government of Tamil Nadu. Thus, it is clear that the repatriation
    of respondent no.1 from 13.06.2014 was back to a Government
    Department in the State of Tamil Nadu on a full-time basis since it was
    the parent department of the respondent no.1 and unconnected with
    the appellant. The respondent no.1 later on joined in the service of the
    appellant on direct recruitment basis to the post of Manager (Technical)
    for which he was selected on 26.08.2015 and finally appointed on
    02.09.2015 albeit with effect from 26.08.2015. Thus, for all practical
    purposes, it meant direct and fresh entry on a permanent basis of
    the respondent no.1 into the appellant. As he had been repatriated
    to his parent department more than a year prior to such permanent
    appointment, it cannot be termed ‘absorption’ which finds mention
    in the aforesaid Clause 6. Thus, respondent no.1 was a fresh and
    new recruit into the service of the appellant directly to the post of
530                                                      [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


       Manager (Technical). This was totally unrelated/unconnected to his
       previous service with the NHAI from 27.05.2008 till 13.06.2014 which
       transaction was complete and reached finality when the respondent
       no.1 was repatriated to his parent department.
24. The respondent no.1 thus does not stand in the same queue in
    which the other three persons were, the difference being that the
    other persons were working with/in the appellant at the relevant
    point(s) in time. In this view of the matter, there can be no other
    meaning given to the benefit being extended to persons, who were
    on deputation service and as such had put in more than four years
    on such post. The respondent no.1 clearly on 22.05.2017 had not
    completed 4 years as that in law has to be counted afresh from
    26.08.2015 and not from a previous date. This is for the reason
    that had the respondent no.1 not applied for and taken part in the
    selection process as a direct recruit, being selected, his claim would
    not have arisen for any promotion under Clause 6 of the Circular. The
    persons already working with the appellant on the day of consideration
    and having completed more than four years of service on the post
    of Manager (Technical) were only required to be considered. Here,
    we may clarify that the only object of Clause 6 was to obliterate the
    difference between a person working on deputation on the post of
    Manager (Technical) and a person regularly working on the post of
    Manager (Technical) under the service of the appellant. This also was
    done as a ‘one-time measure’. Thus, the legal issue to be decided is
    as to whether respondent no.1 has to be treated as a fresh entrant
    without the benefit of his past service on deputation from 21.05.2008
    till 13.06.2014 or he has to be treated as a fresh appointee, in which
    case the clock would, to say so, start ticking only from 26.08.2015.
25. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is correct
    that if the interpretation advanced by the respondent no.1 is given
    to Clause 6, then it would cover all persons who, at any point of
    time, may have worked with the appellant for four years, getting
    the benefit, even with gaps in service in the appellant. A person on
    deputation was given a one-time benefit for being considered for
    promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager (Technical) by the
    appellant for ending prolonged litigation and for ensuring fairness
    and justice to the candidates who chose to face competition by
    going for direct recruitment as would be clear from the Minutes dated
    20.10.2017 quoted above of the Executive Committee’s Meeting
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                       531

     National Highway Authority of India v. G Athipathi and Others


     held on 12.10.2017. The said Minutes leave a window open for
     people who may have been absent from service in the appellant
     for certain period, but with the caveat that such period of absence
     was restricted to the purposes of fulfilling administrative formalities
     e.g. submission/acceptance of technical resignation/retirement etc.
26. In the present case, respondent no.1 was absent from the service
    of the appellant not for any of the above specific purposes,
    but on a permanent basis i.e., being sent back to his parent
    department. Unfortunately, to our mind, the ‘etc.’ in ‘fulfilling
    administrative formalities e.g. submission/ acceptance of technical
    resignation/ retirement etc’ would not cover situation of respondent
    no.1. Obviously, respondent no.1 cannot take advantage of a saving
    provision for such deputationists who, for some period, had to go
    back but for the purposes of returning to the appellant, which have
    been incorporated in the Minutes supra.
27. For reasons aforesaid, we find that the appellant has made out a
    case for interference and the decision taken by the appellant not
    to grant promotion to the respondent no.1 needs to be upheld. The
    other three persons had been granted promotion for the reason that
    those three persons were very much working in/with the appellant
    on the date of consideration and had completed more than four
    years of minimum required service whereas the respondent no.1 had
    not completed four years of minimum required service. Hence, he
    could not have been considered for promotion from 23.07.2017 as
    per the direction of the CAT since he had not completed four years
    on the post of the Manager (Technical) after having joined pursuant
    to direct recruitment on such post, on which service could only be
    reckoned from 26.08.2015. Even otherwise, ‘…past services can be
    taken into consideration only when the Rules permit the same or
    where a special situation exists, which would entitle the employee to
    obtain such benefit of past service.’3 The instant case, as projected
    by respondent no.1 is not covered under the Circular or the Minutes
    dated 20.10.2017 of the Meeting dated 12.10.2017.
28. Further, Circular dated 25.05.2017 itself was the outcome of the
    order of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Sanjeev Kumar
    Sharma (supra), wherein it was observed that the petitioners therein


3   Indu Shekhar Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh (2006) 8 SCC 129
532                                                         [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                           Digital Supreme Court Reports


       be considered for promotion as there was no gap in service. In the
       case at hand, upon repatriation, there was no subsequent deputation
       of respondent no.1 to the appellant. Only after more than one year
       pursuant to taking part in a process for direct and regular recruitment
       to the post of Manager (Technical), respondent no.1 was appointed,
       with effect from 26.08.2015. Therefore, we have no doubt that the
       Circular dated 22.05.2017 would not confer any legal right on the
       respondent no.1 for consideration for promotion to the post of Deputy
       General Manager (Technical) with effect from 27.07.2017.
29. Accordingly, the Impugned Order dated 01.03.2023 as also CAT’s
    order dated 30.12.2020 in O. A. No.310/01633/2020 cannot be
    sustained and are set aside. Resultantly, the said Original Application
    filed by the respondent no.1 shall stand dismissed. Respondent no.1
    shall be considered for promotion(s) in terms of the Recruitment
    Regulations and the Circular and the discussions made in this order
    and all consequential benefits of service (including pension etc., if and
    as applicable) shall be reckoned treating his date of entry into service
    of the appellant as 26.08.2015. However, no recovery/adjustment shall
    be made of excess payment(s) made to the respondent no.1, if any.
30. The appeal is allowed.
31. No order as to cost.

       Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain