In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India reiterated the legal principle that while employees have a fundamental right to be considered for promotion under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, they do not have an absolute or fundamental right to be promoted. The ruling came in the case Government of West Bengal & Ors. v. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors. (Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) Diary No. 43488 of 2023).
A Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta set aside earlier rulings by the Calcutta High Court and the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal, which had directed the grant of notional financial benefits to a retired government employee for a promotional post he never assumed.
Case Background
The appellant, the Government of West Bengal, challenged the Calcutta High Court’s decision affirming the Tribunal’s directive to award notional financial benefits to Dr. Amal Satpathi, a retired Principal Scientific Officer. Dr. Satpathi had been recommended for promotion to Chief Scientific Officer before his retirement on December 31, 2016, but the promotion was not finalized due to administrative delays.
Despite the absence of formal promotion, the High Court and Tribunal had ruled that Dr. Satpathi was entitled to notional financial benefits to ensure his pension reflected the pay scale of the higher post.
Key Legal Issues
1. Right to Promotion vs. Right to Be Considered for Promotion
The Supreme Court examined whether a government employee can claim financial or retrospective benefits for a promotion they were recommended for but did not formally assume.
2. Applicability of Rule 54(1)(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules
The Rule stipulates that an employee must assume the duties of a higher post to draw its pay, emphasizing that promotion is effective from the date of assumption of duties and not merely from the date of recommendation.
3. Impact of Administrative Delays
The Court considered whether delays in the promotion process attributable to the employer justified awarding financial benefits to the employee.
Supreme Court’s Observations
Delivering the judgment, Justice Mehta emphasized the distinction between the right to be considered for promotion and the right to promotion itself. Citing precedents, the Court observed:
“The right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16. However, the actual promotion is contingent upon eligibility and assumption of duties and is not an absolute or fundamental right.”
On the issue of financial benefits, the Court ruled:
“Promotion becomes effective only upon the assumption of duties. Retrospective financial benefits cannot be granted in the absence of explicit enabling provisions, particularly when the employee did not serve in the higher post.”
The Court referenced its previous rulings, including Union of India v. N.C. Murali and State of Bihar v. Akhouri Sachindra Nath, to reinforce the principle that promotions cannot be granted retrospectively if the employee has retired or was not in the cadre.
Decision
The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the Calcutta High Court and the Tribunal, ruling that:
– Dr. Satpathi was entitled to be considered for promotion during his service tenure, but his superannuation before the approval of his promotion precluded any claim to financial benefits for the higher post.
– Rule 54(1)(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules explicitly barred retrospective pay without assumption of duties.
The Court allowed the appeal by the Government of West Bengal and declared that the earlier judgments were “unsustainable in the eyes of law.”
