Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH AT ITANAGAR BENCH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
Shri S.K. Thongdok and ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Arunachal Pradesh, represented by Chief Secretary and ors. – Respondents
WP(C)/45/2018
Decided On : 19-07-2024
PROMOTION - Arunachal Pradesh Police Service - Arunachal Pradesh Police Service Rules, 1989 - The court discussed the provisions of the Arunachal Pradesh Police Service Rules, 1989, which govern promotions within the police service. It highlighted that the rules do not provide for retrospective promotions, emphasizing that promotions take effect from the date they are granted, not from the date a vacancy arises. This interpretation influenced the court's decision to deny the petitioners' request for retrospective promotion.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, serving as Inspectors in the Arunachal Pradesh Police, sought retrospective promotion to the posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP) following a delay in convening the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) that recommended their promotion. They argued that vacancies had existed since 2014 and that their promotions should be effective from that date.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Arunachal Pradesh Police Service Rules, 1989, do not allow for retrospective promotions. It noted that the petitioners were promoted based on the DPC's recommendations made on 05.04.2016, and their promotions were effective from 20.08.2016, the date of the official order.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim promotion with effect from the date the vacancy arose in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP).
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that promotions are effective from the date they are granted, not from the date a vacancy arises, as there is no provision in the governing rules for retrospective effect. This aligns with established legal precedents from the Supreme Court.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming that the petitioners' promotions were effective only from the date of the order (20.08.2016) and not retrospectively from the date the vacancies arose.
JUDGMENT :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
Heard Mr. B. Taipodia, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Addl. Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh, assisted by Ms. Riyum Basar, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of all the respondents.
2. By way of instituting the present proceeding, the petitioners have prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities for granting of retrospective effect to their promotion to the posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police(DySP) figuring in the Arunachal Pradesh Police Service as effected vide order, dated 20.08.2016, with effect from the date, the vacancies had so arisen in the said cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police(DySP).
3. The facts requisite for considering the issue arising in the present proceeding is noticed as under:
The petitioners who were serving as Inspectors of Arunachal Pradesh Police, had their next promotional avenue to the posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police(DySP) figuring in the Arunachal Pradesh Police Service. The manner and method for filling up the posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police(DySP) figuring in the Arunachal Pradesh Police Service is regulated by the provisions of the Arunachal Pradesh Police Service Rules, 1989. In terms of the provisions of the said Rules, the posts in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police(DySP) are filled up by way of direct recruitment as well as by way of promotion from the cadre of Inspectors of Arunachal Pradesh Police. Vacancies becoming available in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police(DySP), a proposal came to be submitted before the Government on 28.01.2015, by the Police Headquarters for convening a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting for considering the cases of eligible Inspectors for promotion to the vacant posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police(DySP) figuring in the Arunachal Pradesh Police Service. In terms of the said proposal; there were 20 posts available against promotional quota in the said cadre of the Deputy Superintendent of Police(DySP).
The said process not having been taken to its to its logical conclusion; the petitioners, herein, approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(c)457(AP)2015, praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities for consideration of their cases for promotion to the entry cadre posts of Arunachal Pradesh Police i.e. the posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP). This Court vide order, dated 08.10.2015, on appreciating the issues arising in the proceeding; was pleased to dispose of the said writ petition by directing the respondent authorities to consider the representation, dated 10.09.2015, submitted by the petitioners in the matter.
In terms of the directions passed by this Court vide the order, dated 08.10.2015, in the said writ petition being WP(c)457(AP)2015; the Commissioner, Home Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, proceeded to dispose of the said representation of the petitioners vide an order, dated 26.10.2015, directing therein, for holding of a fresh Departmental Promotion Committee(DPC) meeting to be convened by the Home Department at the earliest after receiving the views of the Law Department in the matter.
The said Departmental Promotion Committee(DPC) meeting as required to be so convened in terms of the directions passed vide order, dated 26.10.2015, having not being so convened; the petitioners again approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(c)569(AP)2015. This Court, vide order, dated 10.02.2016, on appreciating the contentions made in the matter by the learned Senior Government Advocate that the Departmental Promotion Committee(DPC) for the purpose of considering the cases of the eligible Inspectors of Arunachal Pradesh Police for promotion to the posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police(DySP), has been convened by the competent authority on 12.02.2016 at 3PM. Although, the meeting of the Departm
AI
The right to consideration for promotion is governed by the rules in effect at the time of consideration, not those in place when vacancies arose.
Withdrawal of granted notional retrospective promotion without opportunity of hearing violates natural justice, especially where delay in DPC was administrative and employees eligible, entitling rest....
Retrospective promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right when disciplinary proceedings or penalties were operative at the time of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) assessment, and prom....
Promotion eligibility requires fulfillment of specific conditions at retirement; mere vacancy does not confer entitlement to retrospective promotion.
The court upheld the validity of a change in promotion criteria and ruled that the petitioners' claims for retrospective promotion were barred by res judicata due to a prior judgment.
Point of Law : In case of a notional promotion from retrospective date, it cannot entitle the employee to arrears of salary as the incumbent has not worked in the promotional post.
Promotion rights are not absolute; retrospective promotions require clear vacancies and adherence to procedural rules, which were not met in this case.
The right to promotion constitutes a fundamental right under Article 16, and arbitrary actions by regulatory bodies that deny such rights are unlawful.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
