2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6488

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Narula, J
Ravi Kumar Tripathi – Appellant
Versus
Principal District and Sessions Judge Headquarters Tis Hazari District Courts Delhi – Respondent
W.P.(C) 1349/2022

An employer cannot arbitrarily withdraw officiating promotions without a reasoned order or consideration of existing vacancies, especially when employees have performed the higher duties. Furthermore, recovery of salary for work actually performed is impermissible absent fraud or misrepresentation.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Promotion - Officiating promotion - Withdrawal of promotional status - Whether employer can withdraw officiating promotion arbitrarily without considering available vacancies and without affording an opportunity of hearing - Held, while officiating status does not grant vested rights, administration must act fairly and record reasons for reversion, especially when substantial vacancies are available - Principles of natural justice and administrative fairness are applicable to orders entailing civil consequences - Administration is obliged to demonstrate a rational basis for reversion. (Paras 33, 37, 38, 41, 42)

(B) Service Law - Recovery of salary - Employees in lower rungs of service - Recovery of salary or arrears paid for work actually performed, in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation, is impermissible and contrary to settled law, as it would operate harshly and inequitably. (Para 44)

Facts of the case:
Employees in a judicial support establishment were promoted to higher positions on an officiating basis. Subsequently, these promotions were withdrawn by the employer, reverting the personnel to their former ranks. The applicants challenged the withdrawal orders, contending that the promotions had been acted upon, that they had performed the functions of the higher offices, and that substantial vacancies existed within the cadre at the time of reversion, rendering the administrative action arbitrary and violative of service fairness.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that while officiating appointments do not confer indefeasible rights, they cannot be retracted without justification, particularly when the internal assessment confirms the persistence of vacancies. The failure of the administration to provide a reasoned order or an effective opportunity for the employees to address their grievances rendered the withdrawal arbitrary.

Issues: The main issues were whether the withdrawal of officiating promotions without considering vacancy availability is arbitrary, whether the lack of a speaking order violates principles of natural justice, and whether the recovery of remuneration for work already performed is legally permissible.

Ratio Decidendi: An employer is required to demonstrate a rational and reasoned basis for the reversion of officiating staff when vacancies are known to exist. Procedural requirements such as providing an effective hearing and issuing a reasoned decision are essential when an administrative action results in adverse civil consequences. Furthermore, recovering payments for duties already rendered by employees—in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation—is inequitable and prohibited.

Result: Petitions disposed of; withdrawal orders set aside with a direction for the establishment to reconsider the cases through a reasoned evaluation, while protecting the employees from salary recovery.