Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 15159
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
AMIT RAWAL, K. V. Jayakumar, JJ
SHYLAJA.K – Appellant
Versus
THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER – Respondent
OP (CAT) 104/2020
U.BALAGANGADHARAN, S. BIJU, SRI.A.DINESH RAO, SC, RAILWAYS
Promotion can only be granted from the date an employee assumes responsibilities of the higher position, and there is no inherent right to promotion.
Headnote:(A) Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Promotion - The applicant's claims for promotion were rejected by the Tribunal, which upheld the principle that actual promotion can only be granted from the date an employee assumes responsibilities of the higher position. (Paras 11, 12, 13)
(B) Employment Law - Right to Promotion - An employee has no inherent right to promotion but only the right to be considered for it. (Para 14)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, having joined as Helper Gr. II, was denied promotion to Technician Grade III due to maternity leave, while others were promoted.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found no impropriety in the denial of pre-dated promotion, affirming that promotions take effect only upon assuming duties.
Issues: The main issue was whether a promotion can be considered effective prior to the actual assumption of duties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that promotions cannot be antedated and must align with the date of assuming responsibilities, supporting the Tribunal's decision.
Result: The Original Application is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
K. V. JAYAKUMAR . J .
This original petition is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No. 1051 of 2014 dated 07.02.2018, whereby the following claims of the applicant/petitioner have been rejected.
(i) Call for the records leading to Annexure A6, A8, A9 and A12 and set aside the same as illegal and unsustainable.
(ii) Direct the 1st respondent to consider promoting the applicant as Technician Grade II being the next meritorious person in Annex. A11 panel in preference to 5th respondent.
(iii) Direct the first respondent to pre-date the promotion of the petitioner as Technician Grade III with effect from 14.09.2009 notionally and grant consequential seniority in the post.
(iv) Declare that applicant is entitled to be considered and promoted Technician Grade III in preference to 5th respondent.
(v) Such other reliefs that the Hon’ble Tribunal deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The petitioner/applicant Smt. K. Shylaja was aggrieved by Annexure A6 order, dated 20/082014 and Annexure A8 order dated 01.10.2014, issued by the Senior Divisional Personnel OfÏcer, Southern Railway, Palakkad. The applicant joined in the Railway as Helper Gr.II on 04.01.2005 and later promoted as Helper Gr.I in S & T Department. The next promotion available to her was to the level of Technician Gr. III and was eligible for the same under 25% quota meant for promotion based on seniority, subject to passing a trade test.
3. The petitioner/applicant attended the trade test pursuant to Annexure A1 notification and came out successful vide Annexure A2. However, when the promotion order dated 14.09.2009 came out, the applicant’s name was seen to have been omitted on the ground that she was availing maternity leave with Leave on Average Pay (LAP) /Child Care Leave (CCL) during the period from 19.08.2008 to 02.09.2010. On rejoining, the petitioner was promoted as Technician Grade III with effect from 04.10.2010. The petitioner/applicant further contended that while she was availing maternity leave, two persons who joined as direct recruitment were promoted to Technician Grade III and were placed above the applicant in seniority.
4. The petitioner/applicant submitted a representation claiming her seniority and that was accepted. Accordingly, in Annexure A4 seniority list, her name was placed in serial No.4. Subsequently, when an alert notice was issued for promotion to Grade II, the applicant was above respondent No.5 in the standby list. However, on a representation made by the 5th respondent, Annexure A6 order was passed, placing respondent No.5, Bijali K.V., above the applicant. The petitioner was also placed below Sri. Vinod, who joined as Technician Gr. III only on 04.10.2010. Eventhough, the petitioner/applicant protested against rearrangement, but was rejected vide order dated 01.10.2014, on the ground that, although she was eligible for promotion on an earlier date, she had assumed higher responsibilities of the superior position only with effect from 04.10.2010. Further, ignoring the claim of the applicant, the 5th respondent was promoted as Technician Grade II as per Annexure A12 order dated 12.11.2014. Therefore, the petitioner/applicant knocked the door of the Tribunal, challenging Annexures A6, A8, A9 and A12.
5. The department resisted the claim of the petitioner/applicant, contending that she was on continuous leave from 19.08.2009 to 02.09.2010 on maternity and child care leave. Although, the petitioner had passed the trade test to become eligible for the Technician Grade III post, but was not available to assume the higher responsibilities of the promoted post. The department contended that the applicant was given notional promotion with effect from 07.07.2010, on par with her junior, Shri. P.K. Shelvam, and actual benefits of promotion from 04.10.2010, ie., from the date the petitioner started shouldering higher responsibilities. The railway contended that mere qualifying in the trade test, wh
