The court clarified that 'consequential benefits' do not inherently include further promotions unless explicitly ordered, and compliance with the original judgment was established.

JUDGMENT :

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

Whether the expression ‘consequential benefits’ would also encompass grant of all such promotions to the employee (petitioner) at different stages, which have not been specifically ordered in the judgment by the Court and whether non-grant of same by the employer would entail an action in contempt jurisdiction, are the questions involved in this contempt petition.

2. Related facts.

2(i) Asha Chauhan Vs. Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Limited Shimla & Others, [CWPOA No. 222/2020 decided on 24.05.2023] was filed by the petitioner with the grievance that she had been wrongly ignored for promotion against the post of Superintendent Grade-II w.e.f. 06.07.2016 i.e. the date when her juniors were promoted against the said post.

The Department took the stand that the merit of all candidates was assessed by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) on the basis of their respective Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs). Selected candidates were found to be “outstanding” whereas the petitioner was denied promotion as she was assessed only as “very good”.

During pendency of the petition, petitioner retired from service on 30.09.2022.

2(ii) The Court found that petitioner’s assessment as ‘very good’ was on the basis of entries in the un-communicated ACRs. All available ACRs’ of the petitioner with the respondent-department were those, which were never communicated to her. Denial of promotion to the petitioner to the post of Superintendent Grade-II, on this count was held unsustainable.

2(ii)(a) The Court concluded that:-

In the interest of justice, a direction was required to be issued to the respondent-department to confer promotion to the petitioner against the post of Superintendent Grade-II from the date, persons junior to her were promoted against the said post.

While conferring promotion to the petitioner as Superintendent Grade-II, promotion given to her juniors was not to be disturbed. If need so arises, the petitioner was to be accommodated by creating supernumerary post.

2(ii)(b) In view of aforesaid conclusion, following relief was granted to the petitioner by the Court:-

(i) Respondent-department was directed to promote the petitioner against the post of Superintendent Grade- II w.e.f. 06.07.2016 i.e. the date her juniors were promoted as such.

(ii) While promoting the petitioner as Superintendent Grade-II, the promotion conferred upon her juniors was not to be disturbed.

(iii) Promotion conferred upon the petitioner was to be with all consequential benefits.

The Court further observed that the mandamus being issued by the Court to the respondents to offer appointment (promotion) to the petitioner against the post of Superintendent Grade-II was in the background of undisputed facts that the DPC, which had considered petitioner’s candidature for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-II had not found her unsuitable for promotion, but had assessed her as ‘Very Good’ as against ‘outstanding’ assessment of her juniors.

2(ii)(c) The respondents set out to implement the above judgment. Accordingly an order was passed on 09.08.2023, whereunder:-

(i) Petitioner, who had retired on 30.09.2022 was retrospectively promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade-II in applicable pay-scale w.e.f 06.07.2016 against a supernumerary post for the period 06.07.2016 to 31.07.2017 and against vacant post w.e.f. 01.08.2017;

(ii) Petitioner was also assigned seniority as Superintendent Grade-II based on her seniority position alongwith other incumbents including private respondents in the writ petition;

(iii) Based upon petitioner’s retrospective promotion as Superintendent Grade-II w.e.f. 06.07.2016, pay fixation order towards grant of ‘consequential benefits’ was also issued separately & resultant payments were made to the petitioner.

3. Present contempt petition.

3(i) Sh. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that consequent upon grant of retrospective promotion to the post of Superin