High Court of Punjab and HaryanaLPA/1584/2025allowed

Bharat Bhushan v. State Of Punjab And Others

2026-03-07Mr. Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal,Mr. Justice Deepak Manchanda11 pages

!! !"# #! !$

! % & ! !$

(

$) *

(

+ ' ' , %

-./' * $! 01 2* $! 03/ * $! 0 4 '

/ (

1 2(, 53 ' !! !

# ! !

. #! !'

!! ! # % , ) * (

6 $ 7

/ $ (

# (

89#" !"! !.

:,,"# # # #! !$ ' # #! !$ 26

5 '

) * (

0 /

) * (

;

$' # #! !1/

4,.03$

(, 0 ' $# #! !

' +'

0! ! '

/'$ ! 0! !$

$ $- < <

$ ),.= =.! !

(, !! !9

!! 0! !(

$' != 0! !$ (,

5 2

5 ' $

/ .4

$ '

(, !! ! > ?! !1/

4,.!3$

# #! !$

> ! ! !$

),.

?:#@.! ! inter.

$ '

A "14. Nothing has come on record that any of the employees who were recommended for promotion by the DPC in its meeting held on 18.02.2021 were promoted prior to 31.03.2021 i.e. the date of retirement of the petitioner. Once the promotions have been effected after 31.03.2021 and the petitioner had already retired by then, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of promotion.

15. The similar question came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 13187 of 2024 titled as Government of West Bengal and others Vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi and others, decided on 27.11.2024 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that there is no concept of retrospective promotion. In the said case also, the employee was claiming retrospective promotion from the date of recommendations of the DPC which were declined. The relevant paragraphs 20 and 21 of the said judgment are as under :4 "20. In the instant case, it is evident that while respondent No. 1 was recommended for promotion before his retirement, he could not assume the duties of the Chief Scientific Officer. Rule 54(1)(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules, clearly stipulates that an employee must assume the responsibilities of a higher post to draw the corresponding pay, thus, preventing posthumous or retrospective promotions in the absence of an enabling provision.

21. While we recognize respondent No.1's right to be considered for promotion, which is a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India, he does not hold an absolute right to the promotion itself. The legal precedents discussed above establish that 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. Considering that respondent No. 1 superannuated before his promotion was effectuated, he is not entitled to retrospective financial benefits associated to the promotional post of Chief Scientific Officer, as he did not serve in that capacity."

16. Keeping in view the fact that on the date when the recommendations dated 18.02.2021 were accepted by the Competent Authority, the petitioner had already retired and there is no concept of the grant of retrospective promotion, non4grant of promotion to the petitioner though, causes hardship to him but the same cannot be treated as arbitrary or illegal or contrary to the settled principle of law.

17. No other argument is raised.

18. No ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the present petition.

19. Dismissed."

: 8

+ (,

0 +'$

mala fide

$ '

! 0

(, +

!@ =! ! $0

' *

, $ @@! 1 2* $@@!53 $

6 5

!" ##$% & #

## '

#& (

() * +, - -#&& '''! (.$% /0 1)# 2

! #1"

? Per contra,

(, $

' '

/-( #* ( +4 2 5 ''! ##

'6 +

' 1 3 * $

= )'

' %

$ $

(, +'$

/ $

(

6 5

(

, $ @@!

' +'$

$ 4 $ 6 5

0 $

@ 7'$

.the reduction of posts$

# #! !$

$ $ - < <

$ % $ $

bona fide

(, C

(, B $ # #! !1/

4,.03'

(, $

' '

(, $

$ $

9 ! 0

mala fide

$ .

/ 0 ?

% )

* '

A "25. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the rival parties. First and foremost, we have no hesitation in endorsing the submission advanced at the hands of the appellant, that the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet did not in any manner upset the finding recorded by the Selection Board, in respect of the merit and suitability of the appellant for promotion to the rank of Lieutenant4 General. On the instant aspect of the matter, the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet has maintained a sullen silence. Even in the pleadings filed on behalf of the respondents, there is an ironic quiescence. Therefore, all other issues apart, the appellant must be deemed to have been found suitable for promotion to the rank of Lieutenant4General, even by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet.

Xxx xxx

27. It is not a matter of dispute that the appellant was promoted to the rank of substantive Major4General with effect from 74142004. It is also not a matter of dispute that the substantive vacancy in the rank of Lieutenant4 General, against which the appellant was eligible for consideration, became available with effect from 14142007. Even though the appellant had nearly 14 months of military service remaining at the aforesaid juncture, the procedure contemplated for making promotions to the rank of the Lieutenant4General was initiated for the first time just two days before the date of retirement of the appellant, on 274242008.

Although it is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, that the delay in convening the Selection Board and conducting its proceedings was not deliberate or mala fide2 there can be no doubt about the fact that the appellant was not responsible for such delay. For all intents and purposes, he was repeatedly seeking consideration orally as well as in writing He had been repeatedly informing the authorities about the approaching date of his retirement. In response, he was always assured that if found suitable, he would be actually promoted prior to the date of his retirement. It was for the respondents to convene the meeting of the Selection Board.

convened for the vacancy which had arisen on 14142007 only on 274242008, the respondents must squarely shoulder the blame and responsibility of the above delay.

28. The question that arises for consideration is, whether the non4 consideration of the claim of the appellant would violate the fundamental rights vested in him under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The answer to the aforesaid query would be in the affirmative, subject to the condition that the respondents were desirous of filling the vacancy of Lieutenant4General, when it became available on 14142007. The factual position depicted in the counter4affidavit reveals that the respondents indeed were desirous of filling up the said vacancy.

In the above view of the matter, if the appellant was the seniormost serving Major4General eligible for consideration (which he undoubtedly was), he most definitely had the fundamental right of being considered against the above vacancy, and also the fundamental right of being promoted if he was adjudged suitable. Failing which, he would be deprived of his fundamental right of equality before the law, and equal protection of the laws, extended by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We are of the view that it was in order to extend the benefit of the fundamental right enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, that he was allowed extension in service on two occasions, firstly by the Presidential Order dated 294242008, and thereafter, by a further Presidential Order dated 304542008.

The above orders clearly depict that the aforesaid extension in service was granted to the appellant for a period of three months (and for a further period of one month), or till the approval of the ACC, whichever is earlier. By the aforesaid orders, the respondents desired to treat the appellant justly, so as to enable him to acquire the honour of promotion to the rank of Lieutenant4General (in case the recommendation made in his favour by the Selection Board was approved by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet, stands affirmed). The action of the authorities in depriving the appellant due consideration for promotion to the rank of the Lieutenant4General would have resulted in violation of his fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Such an action at the hands of the respondents would unquestionably have been arbitrary.

Xxx xxx

34. In view of the fact that we have found the order of rejection of the appellant's claim for promotion to the rank of Lieutenant4General, on the ground that he was on extended service to be invalid, we hereby set aside the operative part of the order of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet. It

is also apparent that the Selection Board had recommended the promotion of the appellant on the basis of his record of service, past performance, qualities of leadership, as well as, vision, out of a panel of four names. In its deliberations the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet did not record any reason to negate the aforesaid interference relating to the merit and suitability of the appellant. We are therefore of the view, that the appellant deserves promotion to the rank of Lieutenant4General, from the date due to him. Ordered accordingly. On account of his promotion to the post of Lieutenant4General, the appellant would also be entitled to continuation in service till the age of retirement on superannuation stipulated for Lieutenant4 Generals i.e. till his having attained the age of 60 years.

As such, the appellant shall be deemed to have been in service against the rank of Lieutenant4General till 284242009. Needless to mention, that the appellant would be entitled to all monetary benefits which would have been due to him, on account of his promotion to the rank of Lieutenant4General till his retirement on superannuation, as also, to revised retiral benefits which would have accrued to him on account of such promotion. The above monetary benefits shall be released to the appellant within three months from the date a certified copy of this order becomes available to the respondents."

/-( #* ( *!

+'$

bona fide

) 4 '$ 4

bona fidemala fideB $

bonafide

malafides

;

?! !

! 0! !:

# #! !

# , 3$ $

! "# "!$

% "!

!!& #

% "!

'()*

) " , E "9 ) E "9