IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J.
Bhagwanti – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CWP-13832 of 2017
Decided On : 05-03-2024
JUDGMENT
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)
In the present writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that while the petitioner was working on the post of Accountant, the petitioner became eligible for promotion to the post of Superintendent and the post of Superintendent became available w.e.f., 01.03.2013 and the petitioner was fully eligible for promotion but the said benefit of promotion was not given to her and ultimately, the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation hence, once the petitioner became eligible for promotion to the post of Superintendent while in service, the respondents are under an obligation to promote the petitioner on the said post with retrospective effect.
2. Learned State counsel submits that the promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right and it is not the case of the petitioner that anybody who was junior to the petitioner, has been promoted to the post of Superintendent during the service career of the petitioner hence, the claim of the petitioner as being raised in the present writ petition, is liable to be rejected.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.
4. It is a settled principle of law that the promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right and only the consideration for promotion can be claimed and that too as and when the Department decides to effect promotions. In the present case, nothing has come on record that during the service career of the petitioner after the petitioner attains the eligibility for promotion, the post of Superintendent was filled up or anybody junior to the petitioner was promoted in preference to the petitioner.
5. In the absence of any fact on record, merely that the vacancy was available, will not give a right to the petitioner to claim promotion. The view being taken by this Court is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.517-518 of 2017 titled as Union of India and another v. Manpreet Singh Poonam etc, decided on 08.03.2022.
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, as nobody junior to the petitioner was ever promoted to the post of Superintendent during her service career, no grievance can be raised by the petitioner for non grant of promotion to the post of Superintendent during the service career.
7. Dismissed.
Promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right; eligibility does not guarantee promotion without evidence of junior promotions.
The claim for promotion is not a right and the promotions are to be made at the discretion of the employer as and when the employer feels the requirement of the same.
The right to be considered for promotion is fundamental, but there is no absolute right to promotion itself; promotions are effective only upon assuming duties.
Consideration for promotion is a fundamental right of an employee, and promotions cannot be claimed as an absolute right.
Promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right by an employee, but consideration for promotion is a Fundamental Right.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.