Retrospective promotion is an exception and not the rule, and its grant is contingent on the presence of statutory rules mandating a time-bound Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) and the absence of personal mala fide against any particular officer or superior.

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to assail the order dated 22.08.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT/Tribunal) in O.A. No.2631/2012. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, dismissed the petitioner’s Original Application. The petitioner applicant had preferred the said Original Application to seek a declaration that her promotion to the post of Deputy Director in the FSL – which was made on 24.05.2012 , having been made in respect of panel year 2008-09, should be made retrospective from 01.04.2008. She sought other consequential reliefs premised on the aforesaid primary relief. The Tribunal has held that the petitioner actually having been promoted on 24.05.2012, was not entitled to ante-dated promotion, since the facts of the case did not justify ante-dated promotion.

2. The claim for retrospective promotion is premised on the submission that ante-dated promotion can be granted in appropriate circumstances. In support of this submission, learned counsel has, firstly, relied upon K. Madhavan and Another Vs. Union of India and Others, (1987) 4 SCC 566. In paragraph 15 of this decision, the Supreme Court has observed as follows:

“15. There can be no doubt that if the meeting of the DPC scheduled to be held is arbitrarily or mala fide cancelled without any reasonable justification therefor to the prejudice of an employee and he is not considered for promotion to a higher post, the government in a suitable case can do justice to such an employee by granting him promotion or appointing him to the higher post for which the DPC was to be held, with retrospective effect so that he is not subjected to a lower position in the seniority list. But, if the cancellation or postponement of the meeting of the DPC is not arbitrary and is supported by good reasons, the employee concerned can have no grievance and the government will not be justified in appointing the employee to the higher post with retrospective effect. An employee may become eligible for a certain post, but surely he cannot claim appointment to such post as a matter of right.” (emphasis supplied)

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, secondly, placed reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in UOI & Anr. Vs. K.L. Taneja & Anr., W.P.(C.) No. 8102/2012 decided on 12.04.2013, and in particular paragraph 21 of the said decision. This Court in K.L. Taneja (supra) has observed as follows:

“21. The cornucopia of case law above noted brings out the position :-

(i) Service Jurisprudence does not recognize retrospective promotion i.e. a promotion from a back date.

(ii) If there exists a rule authorizing the Executive to accord promotion from a retrospective date, a decision to grant promotion from a retrospective date would be valid because of a power existing to do so.

(iii) Since mala fides taints any exercise of power or an act done, requiring the person wronged to be placed in the position the person would find himself but for the mala fide and tainted exercise of power or the act, promotion from a retrospective date can be granted if delay in promotion is found attributable to a mala fide act i.e. deliberately delaying holding DPC, depriving eligible candidates the right to be promoted causing prejudice.

(iv) If due to administrative reasons DPC cannot be held in a year and there is no taint of malice, no retrospective promotion can be made.” (emphasis supplied)

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on Union of India and Another Vs. Hemraj Singh Chauhan and Others, (2010) 4 SCC 290, and in particular paragraph 42 of this decision, wherein the Supreme Court has observed:

“42. Concurring with the aforesaid interpretative exercise, we hold that the statutory duty which is cast on the State Government and the Central Government to undertake the cadre review exercise every five years is ordinarily mandatory subject to exceptions which may be justified in the facts of a given case.