The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right, and seniority cannot be granted retrospectively when an employee was not borne in the cadre.

ORDER :

1. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer :-

“(1) By an writ, appropriate writ, order or direction or in nature thereof thereby the respondents be directed to release all the dues of the petitioner after revising his pay scale for the post of Joint Director and also commute his gratuity, pension and other retiral benefits along with prevalent rate of interest 18% per annum from the date of his retirement i.e. 30/06/2017 along with all consequential benefits.

(2) Any other writ, order or direction which may be deemed proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be issued in favour of petitioner.”

Submission by the petitioner:

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working on the post of Deputy Director and the vacancies for the promotional post i.e. Joint Director became vacant in the month of April, 2017 and even the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short ‘DPC’) was conducted by the respondents against the vacancy for the year 2017-18 and, accordingly, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Joint Director vide order dated 15.04.2017. Counsel submits that while promoting the petitioner on the promotional post, it was observed that the date of promotion of the petitioner would be 01.07.2017. Counsel submits that before getting promotion on the promotional post, the petitioner stood retired from the post of Deputy Director on 30.06.2017. Counsel submits that due to arbitrary act of the respondents, the petitioner has failed to get the benefit of promotional post. Counsel submits that the respondents have not granted the benefits of promotional post to the petitioner prior to his retirement, hence, discrimination has been caused with the petitioner to deprive him from getting the benefit of promotional post. In support of his contentions, counsel has placed reliance upon the following judgments:

(I) M.P. Singh Bargoti Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another reported in (2014) 15 SCC 553; and

(II) Major General H.M. Singh, VSM Vs. Union of India and Another reported in (2014) 3 SCC 670.

3. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted and appropriate direction be issued to the respondents to grant notional benefits of the promotional post to the petitioner with all consequential benefits.

Submission by the respondents:

4. Per contra, counsel for the State respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that against the vacancies of year 2017-18, the ‘DPC’ was conducted and, accordingly, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Joint Director w.e.f. 01.07.2017. Counsel submits that the order dated 25.04.2017 was clear and specific and it was specifically mentioned that the selected candidates would get the benefit of promotion w.e.f. 01.07.2017 when the vacancies became due. Hence, the respondents have not caused any illegality in passing the order dated 25.04.2017. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief in this regard.

Analysis and Reasoning:

5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the bar and perused the material available on the record.

6. By way of filing this petition, the petitioner is seeking direction against the respondents to revise his pay scale for the post of Joint Director and grant him gratuity, pension and all retiral dues with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of his retirement i.e. 30.06.2017.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner stood retired on 30.06.2017 from the post of Deputy Director after attaining the age of superannuation. This fact is not in dispute that the DPC was conducted by the respondents against the vacant posts of Joint Director (General) for the vacant posts of the year 2017-18 and accordingly, a decision was taken to promote 22 candidates on the post of Joint Director w.e.f. the date of vacancy. Accordingly, an order was passed to promote the petitioner f