Smti. G.Mallika v. The Sri Vijaya Puram Municipal Council And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] *** PRESENT: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK WPA/673/2024 SMTI G. MALLIKA ... PETITIONER VS.

THE SRI VIJAYA PURAM MUNICIPAL AND ANOTHER ...

RESPONDENTS For the petitioner :

Ms. Anjili Nag, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Sohini Biswas For the respondent :

Mr. Rakesh Kumar Heard on :

February 19, 2026 Delivered on :

February 19, 2026 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1.

Petitioner seeks post facto notional promotion to the post of Head Clerk subsequent to his superannuation on June 1, 2024 for the purpose of pensionary benefits.

2.

Learned senior advocate appearing for the writ petitioner submits that, the writ petitioner was made to undergo training to be promoted for the post of Head Clerk. Petitioner underwent such training. However, no Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting was held prior to the superannuation of the petitioner on

June 01, 2024. She submits that the petitioner cannot be deprived of the pensionary benefits as a notionally promoted Head Clear due to the lapses of the authorities in not convening DPC within time. 3.

In support of such contention, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner relies upon the order dated August 21, 2021 passed in civil writ jurisdiction Case No. 2172 of 2021 by the Patna High Court ( Union of India and others vs. Kapildeo Singh).

4.

Learned advocate appearing for the respondents submits that, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion in a duly constituted DPC. DPC was convened on June 28, 2024 by which time the petitioner superannuated.

5.

Petitioner was urged to undergo a training for the purpose of considering candidature of the petitioner to be promoted to the post of Head Clerk. Petitioner underwent such training. Petitioner superannuated on June 01, 2024. No DPC meeting was convened prior to the date of superannuation of the petitioner at least for the period of time between when the petitioner underwent the training and the petitioner superannuated.

6.

It is trite law that, an employee is entitled to be considered fairly for the purpose of promotion, in accordance with the promotional rules in the organization.

7.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, an employee as that of the nature of the petitioner, is promoted upon a recommendation made by the DPC.

8.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, meeting of the DPC did not occur between the period when the petitioner undertook the training and his superannuation. Therefore, his candidature could not be considered for promotion. 9.

Since, no DPC was convened within the period of noted above, no other employee as similarly situated and circumstanced as that of the petitioner was given a promotion within the period of time i.e. between the date when the petitioner underwent the training and the date when the petitioner superannuated. Petitioner therefore was not discriminated against.

10.

In Kapildeo Singh (supra), the incumbent was promoted subsequently.

Late promotion, deprived such incumbent of pensionary benefits. Therefore, notional promotion from an earlier date directed to be granted. Facts scenario are different here. 11.

As noted above, the petitioner was not promoted to the post of Head Clerk during his tenure of employment. Question therefore of granting promotion from retrospective effect does not arise. 12.

WPA/673/2024 is dismissed, without any order as to costs. ( Debangsu Basak, J. )