IMPORTANT POINT
A retired employee is not entitled to notional promotion if no formal recommendation for promotion was made prior to retirement.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Purohit, J.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 28.06.2017, passed by respondent no.2, annexure-15 to the writ petition, whereby the notional promotion has been denied to the petitioner.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner was working with the Directorate of ICDS, Uttarakhand on the post of Administrative Officer. Petitioner was initially appointed as Clerk with the respondent in the year 1985. Thereafter, he was promoted as Senior Assistant and subsequent promotion was also given to the petitioner on the post of Chief Assistant and finally, he was promoted on the post of Administrative Officer.

4. According to the petitioner after Administrative Officer, petitioner was entitled to be promoted on the post of Senior Administrative Officer and thereafter, Chief Administrative Officer and the procedure for said promotional exercise have already been initiated by the respondent-department. But, before the petitioner could reap the benefit of promotional exercise and would have been promoted on the post of Senior Administrative Officer and Chief Administrative Officer, he got retired on 31.05.2017. Petitioner one day before his retirement moved this Court by filing a WPSS No.1237 of 2017 and that writ petition has been decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 30.05.2017. Pursuant to the order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, respondent no.2 has taken a decision and the notional promotion has been denied to the petitioner. It is feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, petitioner is before this Court claiming notional promotion.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of promotional exercise which was undertaken after his retirement and accordingly, he is entitled to get notional promotion. In order to buttress his arguments, he relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (S/B) No.274 of 2016 (V.K. Joshi vs. State of Uttarakhand & others) decided on 09.08.2018. He further relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Major General H.M. Singh, VSM vs. Union of India & another; reported in (2014) 3 SCC 670.

6. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner as is reflected from the impugned order dated 28.06.2017, the promotional exercise was proposed vide Resolution No.14.12.2016 and before this proposal of the government for promotion takes place, the petitioner retired on 31.05.2017.

7. State has filed its counter affidavit and in the counter affidavit, the specific stand has been taken by the respondents that though the process for promotion was under consideration, but due to departmental formalities for example collection of records in relations to the annual character role of the incumbents, the same could not have been completed and before it could have been completed, petitioner retired on superannuation, therefore, the petitioner could not be promoted.

8. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed under the hand of Anulekha Bisht, District Programme Officer, Bal Vikas, Nainital, District Nainital and it is stated in para 3 of the said supplementary counter affidavit that there is no rules and government orders which provides for giving benefit of promotional exercise to the incumbents who have already retired.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from the perusal of the record, this Court proceeds to decide the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of V.K. Joshi (Supra) and Major General H.M. Singh (Supra) in order to buttress his point that even after his retirement, he is entitled to be promoted on the next higher post of Senior Administrative Officer and Chief Administrative Officer.

10. I have gone through both the judgments very carefully. Both the judgments are distinguisha