The court reaffirmed that retrospective promotions require exceptional circumstances, which were not present in this case.

W.A.No.171 of 2020 ….............................................................. Dated this the 23^rd day of February, 2026 JUDGMENT P.V. Balakrishnan, J This intra-court appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C)

No.13241 of 2017, challenging the judgment dated 12.12.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition.

2. The appellant/writ petitioner joined the service of the

1^st respondent as a Fitter in the year 1981. He was promoted as a Mechanical Supervisor in the year 1994, and thereafter, he continued in the same post without any further promotion. In these circumstances, the appellant submitted a representation to the 1^st respondent for considering him for the post of Deputy Manager (Mechanical). Since no action was taken, the appellant filed W.P.(C)No.19718 of 2008 and this Court, by judgment dated 01.07.2008, directed the 1^st respondent to consider the petitioner's claim for promotion. Since no positive action was taken, the Union raised a dispute before the District Labour Officer, Pathanamthitta, who is the Conciliation Officer regarding this issue. When conciliation failed, the matter reached the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam, where the case was registered as Industrial Dispute No.3 of 2012. The demand of the Union was for promotion of the appellant with retrospective effect from 01.05.2008, the date on which the vacancy arose. During the pendency of the industrial dispute, the government appointed a one-man commission to study the revision of pay and allowances, retirement, service conditions, etc., of the employees, and the report of the commission was produced before the Industrial Tribunal. Accordingly, the Industrial Tribunal passed Ext.P4 award directing the 1^st respondent to promote the appellant to the post of Deputy Manager (Mechanical) immediately. The 1^st respondent implemented the award by promoting the appellant, by Ext.P5 order dated 14.03.2013. Subsequently, the State Government approved the decision of the Board of Directors to accept the report of the one man commission, and the 1^st respondent issued Ext.P6 order regularizing the appointment of the appellant with effect from 01.03.2013. According to the appellant, the Industrial Tribunal having found the demand of the Union for promotion of the appellant from 01.05.2008 justifiable, the 1^st respondent ought to have promoted him with effect from 01.05.2008. Highlighting the afore fact, the appellant submitted Ext.P8 representation to the 1^st respondent. But the same was considered and rejected as per Ext.P10 order dated 23.02.2017. It is challenging Ext.P10 order; the appellant filed the afore writ petition.

3. The learned Single Judge after considering the materials on record and hearing both sides, dismissed the writ petition.

4. Heard Adv. Seemandhini, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, Adv. Rakeshkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent and Adv. P.A. Harish, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the tribunal, as per Ext.P4 award, has found the appellant entitled to promotion with retrospective effect from 01.05.2008 and therefore, the 1^st respondent was not correct in rejecting the said claim, as per Ext.P10 order. She also submitted that the appellant has been discharging the functions of the Deputy Manager (Mechanical) since 01.04.2008 and there was no justification in not promoting him with retrospective effect. She relied on Ext.R1(a) Government Order and contended that the 1st respondent is bound to promote the appellant from the date as and when the vacancy arose i.e., 01.05.2008.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgment and contended that there are no grounds to interfe