Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 1093

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
Government of West Bengal & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 13187 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). of 2024 (Diary No. 43488 of 2023)
Decided On : 27-11-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Soumya Chakraborty, Sr. Adv. Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Ms. Anju Thomas, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Chakravarty, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): M/S. S. S. Rana & Co., AOR Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Promotion – Promotion only becomes effective upon assumption of duties on promotional post and not on the date of occurrence of vacancy or the date of recommendation – Right to be considered for promotion as not only a statutory right but also a fundamental right but there is no fundamental right to promotion itself.
(2) Promotion cannot be retrospectively granted after retirement, as it requires actual assumption of duties and responsibilities of promotional post.

Headnote:
Service Law – Promotion – Notional financial benefits – Promotion only becomes effective upon assumption of duties on promotional post and not on the date of occurrence of vacancy or the date of recommendation – While Courts have recognized right to be considered for promotion as not only a statutory right but also a fundamental right, there is no fundamental right to promotion itself – Promotion cannot be retrospectively granted after retirement, as it requires actual assumption of duties and responsibilities of promotional post – Considering that respondent No. 1 superannuated before his promotion was effectuated, he is not entitled to retrospective financial benefits associated to promotional post of Chief Scientific Officer, as he did not serve in that capacity – Impugned Judgments set aside. [Rule 54(1)(a) of West Bengal Service Rules, 1971 ] (Paras 18, 19, 21)
Facts of the case:
Primary question that arises for consideration in present appeal is whether respondent No.1, who was recommended for promotion before his retirement but did not receive actual promotion to higher post due to administrative delays, is entitled to notional financial benefits of promotional post after his retirement?
Findings of Court:
Judgment dated 1st February, 2023 passed by High Court of Calcutta and judgment dated 26th June, 2019 passed by Tribunal are unsustainable in eyes of law and are hereby reversed and set aside.
Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

Mehta, J.

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. The present appeal has been filed by the Government of West Bengal¹[Hereinafter being referred to as “appellant No. 1”.] and its components, challenging the judgment dated 1st February, 2023²[Hereinafter being referred to as “Impugned judgment”.] passed by the High Court at Calcutta, in WPST No. 157 of 2019. The High Court vide impugned judgment upheld the order of the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal³[Hereinafter being referred to as “Tribunal”.], which directed that respondent No. 1, Dr. Amal Satpathi, though not entitled to retrospective promotion after his superannuation, should be awarded notional financial benefits for the promotional post of Chief Scientific Officer as of his retirement date i.e., 31st December, 2016. The appellants are aggrieved by this direction, contending that no financial benefits, even on a notional basis, are admissible to respondent No. 1 who never assumed charge of the promotional post.

Brief Facts: -

4. Respondent No.1, Dr. Amal Satpathi, was promoted to the post of Principal Scientific Officer on an officiating basis on 24th March, 2008. On 6th January, 2016, following an amendment to the relevant Recruitment Rules, respondent No.1 became eligible for promotion to the post of Chief Scientific Officer. The Department⁴[Science and Technology Department] initiated the promotional process by approaching the Public Service Commission⁵[In short, ‘PSC’] on 13th April, 2016. The PSC, vide its minutes dated 29th December, 2016, recommended the name of respondent No.1 for the promotion to the said post. However, the Department received the final approval for his promotion on 4th January, 2017, but by that time, respondent No.1 had already superannuated on 31st December, 2016. Respondent No.1 made a representation to the Department to give effect to his promotion. The matter was then referred to the Finance Department, Government of West Bengal. The reply of the Finance Department is extracted below: -

In the instant case Dr. Amal Satpathi could not join to the promotional post within his service tenure. He retired on superannuation on 31.12.2016. As a result officiation to the higher post with greater responsibilities and importance does not arise.

As such appointment on promotion after retirement with retrospective effect can not be awarded for Gr.-'A' posts.

We are, therefore, of the same opinion stated by F.A., dated 16.2.2017.”

5. Aggrieved by the denial of the benefits flowing from promotion, respondent No. 1 approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 555 of 2017. The Tribunal vide order dated 26th June, 2019 observed that, as per Rule 54(1)(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules, Part-I of 1971⁶[Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘West Bengal Service Rules’], promotion cannot be granted retrospectively after the retirement of a Government employee. However, the Tribunal acknowledged that respondent No. 1 had been duly recommended for promotion before his superannuation, which was only delayed due to procedural obstructions beyond his control. Therefore, while actual promotion was not acceded to, the Tribunal directed that respondent No.1 should be granted notional financial benefits of the promotional post with effect from 31st December, 2016, to ensure pensionary benefits commensurate with the promotional post.

6. The appellants challenged this order before the High Court in WPST No. 157 of 2019. The High Court, vide judgment dated 1st February, 2023 dismissed the writ petition, concurring with the Tribunal that retrospective promotion was impermissible but noting that notional financial benefits were justified given that no fault can be attributed to respondent No. 1. Aggrieved, the State has preferred this appeal by