Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
Pradip Prasad S/o Late Gajanan – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P. (S) No. 5485 of 2018
Decided On : 03-02-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ seeks promotion mandamus and notification quashing. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. service history; quashed punishment; juniors promoted earlier. (Para 3 , 4 , 12) |
| 3. state fault negates no-work-no-pay for benefits. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 10) |
| 4. no promotion right; rules 58/74 and acr bar benefits. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. right to promotion accrues when juniors promoted. (Para 11 , 13 , 19) |
| 6. quashed punishment has retrospective effect ab initio. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 7. incomplete acr not employee's fault; communicate defects. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 8. rules inapplicable if state causes promotion delay. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 9. retrospective promotions, benefits, and arrears directed. (Para 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT :
DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondent-State of Jharkhand to grant promotion to the petitioner to the post of Deputy Secretary with effect from 24.6.2013 and further to the post of Joint Secretary with effect from 27.7.2018. The petitioner has also prayed for the grant of all consequential benefits.
In addition to the above, the petitioner prays that the notification dated 3.10.2019 (Annexure-7) and the notification dated 17.11.2020 (Annexure-8), by which he has been granted notional promotion to the post of Additional Collector/Deputy Secretary and to the post of Joint Secretary, respectively, be quashed as they suffer from gross illegality and arbitrariness.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner, after qualifying for the 37th Bihar Public Service Examination, joined service in the year 1993. After the bifurcation of the State of Bihar, the petitioner was allotted the Jharkhand cadre, and he joined his services in the State of Jharkhand in 2003. The otherwise unblemished career of the petitioner was adversely affected when an order of minor punishment was passed against him vide order dated 20.2.2013. The petitioner assailed the same before this Court by filing a writ petition, which was registered as W.P.(S) No. 4548 of 2013. This Court, vide its order dated 8.03.2016, set aside the punishment order dated 20.02.2013 and quashed the disciplinary proceeding. The respondent-authority accepted the order of this Court and, vide order dated 19.08.2016, recalled its order of punishment.
4. Learned counsel had also submitted that after recalling the punishment order dated 20.02.2013, the respondent-authorities, acting illegally, issued a fresh show-cause to the petitioner on 27.08.2016. The petitioner immediately filed another writ petition, W.P.(S) No. 5823 of 2016. This Court, after considering the entire case, was pleased to set aside the show cause dated 27.08.2016 vide order dated 5.07.2017.
It has been further submitted that the petitioner is placed at serial number 664; however, despite orders passed by this Court quashing the order of punishment, persons below the petitioner on the gradation list were promoted vide notification dated 24.06.2013. Persons junior to the petitioner were also granted promotion to the post of Joint Secretary on 25.7.2018.
It was also submitted that the respondent-authorities granted notional promotion to the post of Additional Collector/Deputy Secretary with effect from 24.06.2013 to the petitioner vide notification dated 3.10.2019 but without financial benefits. Thus, the petitioner was thereafter granted promotion to the post of Joint Secretary vide notification dated 17.11.2020, but again financial benefit was not granted from the date of eligibility, i.e., the date from which his juniors were granted promotion – 25.7.2018.
5. During the argument, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that during the pendency of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has been granted promotion to the post of Additional Secretary vide notification dated 26.6.2023, with effect from 17.11.2021. The notification is produced before this Court, which
Quashing of punishment has retrospective effect; employee gets promotion and financial benefits from juniors' promotion dates when delay due to employer's fault; 'no work no pay' inapplicable; incomp....
Promotion benefits must be provided retrospectively if employees are faultless for the delay; state errors cannot obstruct rightful claims.
Promotion cannot be denied solely based on the number of past punishments without considering their nature and timing, ensuring equal treatment under Article 14.
Promotional benefits must be granted from the actual date of promotion, not from the date of notification, ensuring equal treatment for similarly situated employees.
Post exoneration in disciplinary/criminal proceedings, employee entitled to retrospective promotion with actual monetary benefits from due date, not notional, absent recorded reasons for denial; 'no ....
Promotion decisions must adhere to principles of natural justice, including adequate communication of requirements; discriminatory practices violate constitutional rights.
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 born....
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
