The Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling on service law, has held that an employee’s promotion is effective from the date the promotion order is issued and duties are assumed, not from the date a vacancy arises or a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) makes a recommendation. The court overturned an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) that had granted notional promotion to a retired government officer.
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain, was hearing a petition filed by the Union of India challenging the CAT’s order directing it to grant notional promotion to Ramesh Chandra Shukla, a retired Deputy Director General of the Geological Survey of India. The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order, reinforcing the legal principle that retrospective promotion cannot be claimed merely due to administrative delays, unless such delays are proven to be mala fide or entirely unreasonable.
Background of the Case
Ramesh Chandra Shukla joined the Geological Survey of India in 1983 and was recommended for promotion to the post of Deputy Director General by a DPC held on January 22, 2016, for the vacancy year 2016-17. His name was at the top of the panel for that year.
However, the promotion order was issued only on July 21, 2016. Shukla retired on June 30, 2017. The delay meant he could not complete the mandatory one-year service in the promotional post, which rendered him ineligible for a Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) to the next higher scale of Additional Director General, which he would have been entitled to on April 1, 2017.
Shukla submitted multiple representations seeking notional promotion from April 1, 2016—the date the vacancy purportedly arose—which were rejected by the Ministry of Mines. The Ministry cited Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) rules stating that promotions have a prospective effect. Aggrieved, Shukla approached the CAT, which ruled in his favour, directing the government to grant him notional promotion from April 1, 2016, though without arrears until July 21, 2016. The Union of India then challenged this decision in the Delhi High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The Union of India, represented by Advocate Jaswinder Singh, argued that promotion can only take effect from the actual date it is granted. It was contended that the delay in issuing Shukla’s promotion order was due to administrative reasons, specifically the decision to first exhaust the panel of officers recommended by a Supplementary DPC for the previous year (2015-16) before promoting officers from the 2016-17 panel.
On the other hand, Deeptanshu Shukla, counsel for Ramesh Chandra Shukla, argued that the delay was mala fide. He submitted that the last officer from the 2015-16 panel was promoted by March 2, 2016, and a vacancy was available for him from April 1, 2016. He contended that once an employee is adjudged fit for promotion against an existing vacancy, the promotion becomes a fundamental right and a condition of service, and the state cannot take advantage of its own delay.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The High Court, after considering the submissions, found merit in the arguments of the Union of India. The bench observed that while the delay had financial repercussions for the respondent, the established law is that promotion is effective from the date it is actually granted.
The Court held, “Merely because vacancies exist, or that the name of the officer has been recommended by the DPC for promotion, the same will not create a right in such officer to claim promotion till it is actually granted.”
The bench heavily relied on the recent Supreme Court judgment in Govt. of West Bengal & Ors. v. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors., which clarified the legal position. Quoting the Supreme Court, the High Court reiterated, “…promotion only becomes effective upon the assumption of duties on the promotional post and not on the date of occurrence of the vacancy or the date of recommendation.”
The court distinguished the various judgments cited by the respondent, noting that those cases involved established instances of administrative failure, wrongful supersession, or mala fide conduct, which were not proven in the present case. The High Court accepted the government’s justification that the delay was due to the administrative procedure of exhausting the supplementary panel first.
The Court stated, “While there can be no dispute with the proposition that the State, being a model employer, must take timely action in advance to fill all vacancies, at the same time, unless it is found that the inaction of the petitioner was mala fide or unreasonable, so as to warrant a departure from the general rule that promotion must take effect from the date it is granted, the general rule must apply.”
Concluding that the CAT’s order could not be sustained in law, the High Court allowed the petition filed by the Union of India and set aside the impugned order.
