IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

227 Date of Decision : 30.03.2026 Usha Rani …..Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present : Mr. Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Anamika Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amanpreet Singh Bains, A.A.G., Punjab.

****

NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

1. On the last date of hearing i.e. 18.03.2026, the following order was passed :-

“The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to consider and promote the petitioner to the post of Superintendent Grade-I with effect from 01.11.2019, the date from which the said post became vacant, with all consequential benefits.

In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was held on 12.03.2020 and 30.03.2020 for promotion of other vacancies/posts in the department. It has further been stated that two posts of Superintendent Grade-I (one in General Category and one in SC Category) in the Head Office had fallen vacant and for this purpose, the name of the petitioner as well as five other eligible employees was forwarded to the Director of Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, vide letter dated 24.04.2020 (Annexure P-3) and in pursuance to the above-said letter, the DPC was to be held on 29.05.2020, whereby the name of the petitioner along with other five employees was to be considered. However, the said meeting was cancelled and thereafter, the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2020 and much after her retirement, the promotions were made to the said posts on 31.03.2021.

Learned State counsel submits that no person junior to the petitioner has ever been promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade-I, while the petitioner was in service. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in I. Chuba Jamir and others v. The State of Nagaland and others : 2010(1) SCT 183 and judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and others v. Tarlochan Singh and others : 2014(3) SCT 330, wherein it has been held that mere existence of vacancy does not confer any right of promotion to the employee.

Counsel for the petitioner is not present.

In the interest of justice, adjourned to 30.03.2026.

To be taken up immediately after urgent cases.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was due for retirement on 31.05.2020 and the D.P.C. was to be held on 29.05.2020, however, the same was intentionally cancelled by the respondents and the petitioner retired from service, on attaining the age of superannuation, on 31.05.2020 and her right for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-I has been frustrated only due to their inaction in not holding the said D.P.C. on 29.05.2020.

3. Per contra, learned State counsel, while referring to the averments given in the short reply dated 29.10.2021 filed by the State and reiterating his contentions recorded, vide order dated 18.03.2026, submits that in the absence of any statutory mandate for filling up the vacancies, the employer is well within its right to decide about the time, it would chose to fill up the vacancies.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant documents.

5. There is no doubt that the petitioner was due for retirement on 31.05.2020 and as per the stand taken by the respondents in their written statement, meeting of D.P.C. was held on 12.03.2020 & 30.03.2020 for promotion of other vacancies/posts in the department and the case of the petitioner was also under consideration for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-I in the meeting of the D.P.C. to be held on 29.05.2020, however, the same was cancelled and the petitioner retired from service two days thereafter and further, promotions to the post of Superintendent G