Administrative Delay And Seniority: When Favouring A Junior Over Seniors Becomes Discriminatory: Delhi High Court

Background Facts

The respondent and a colleague were selected as officers in the Indian Ordnance Factories Service (IOFS) 2006 batch. However, they received their appointment letters much later than their other batchmate due to a procedural delay. The batchmate joined his post on December 31, 2007, respondent and his colleague could join on June 30, 2008, after a delay of six months.

Later, during promotions to the Junior Administrative Grade (JAG) the eligibility was a specific period of qualifying service. Their junior was promoted after being granted a relaxation in the service criteria. However, respondent and his colleague were declared ineligible, as the six-month delay placed them outside the maximum two-year relaxation period.

They were being penalized for a delay which was not due to their fault. Hence, they challenged the decision before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal ruled in their favor. It directed the government to grant them notional promotion from the same date another officer was promoted. Aggrieved, the Union of India filed the petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the Tribunal's order.

It was argued by the Union of India that the respondents were duly considered in a review DPC but were correctly found ineligible for promotion. The UOI emphasized that, as per the SRO No. 227/2002 and SRO No. 01(E)/2014, an officer must complete 13 years of Group 'A' service with four years in the Senior Time Scale. It was argued that while a maximum relaxation of two years in qualifying service is permissible, the respondent officers fell short of the requirement by more than the provided limit. On the other hand, the respondent officers contended that they were selected in the same 2006 batch as their junior and the reason for their later joining date was the government's own delayed process in issuing their appointment letters.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the Court that the officers were senior in the selection process. The delay in their joining created the shortfall in their qualifying service for promotion. It was further observed that due to administrative reasons of the UOI, the junior was issued the appointment letter before the same could be issued to both officers. Further the delay was found to be attributable to the administrative process of UOI and not to any fault of the officers themselves.

It was held by the court that it was discriminatory to grant a service relaxation to a junior officer, which facilitated his promotion, while denying the same benefit to his seniors who were placed at a disadvantage due to the government's own delay.

Consequently, finding no merit in the petition, the court upheld the Tribunal's directions. With the aforesaid observations, the petition filed by the Union of India was dismissed by the court.

It was directed that the officers should be granted notional promotion to the Junior Administrative Grade from the date their junior was promoted i.e. 30-06-2020, along with all consequential benefits. The time for complying with the order was extended by eight weeks.

Case Name : Union of India & Anr. vs. Amit Kumar Yadav & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1464

Case No. : W.P.(C) 15978/2025

Counsel for the Petitioners : Himanshu Pathak, SPC with Amit Singh, Adv

Counsel for the Respondents : Syed Abdul Haseeb, CGSC with Nasreen, Adv

Click Here To Read/Download The Order