2022 Supreme(SC) 193

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi)
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, M.M. Sundresh, JJ.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
MANPREET SINGH POONAM ETC. – RESPONDENT(S)
Civil Appeal Nos. 517-518 of 2017
Decided On : 08-03-2022

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Right to promotion and subsequent benefits and seniority would arise only with respect to rules governing said promotion, and not a different set of rules which might apply to a promoted post facilitating further promotion which is governed by a different set of rules.
(2) Promotion to a post should only be granted from date of promotion and not from date on which vacancy has arisen.
(3) When rules are specific and clear, there is no need for interpretation which may lead to a case of judicial legislation.
(4) No officer has a vested right to a promotional post, which is restricted to that of consideration according to law – Once an officer retires voluntarily, there is cessation of jural relationship between employer and employee – Such a former employee cannot seek to agitate his past, as well as future rights, if any, sans prescription of rules.

Headnote:

(A) Service Law – Promotion – Differential pay scale along with a process of selection qua suitability fixing eligibility criteria are factors to determine whether a particular post is the same as other or a promotional one – When rules are specific and clear, there is no need for interpretation which may lead to a case of judicial legislation – No officer has a vested right to a promotional post, which is restricted to that of consideration according to law – Once an officer retires voluntarily, there is cessation of jural relationship resorting to a “golden handshake” between employer and employee – Such a former employee cannot seek to agitate his past, as well as future rights, if any, sans prescription of rules – This would include enhanced pay scale – Respondent neither on facts nor on law can claim retrospective promotion, and that too from year 2009 being year in which he was placed in select list against a notional vacancy – Promotion cannot be granted retrospectively and extended to give benefit and seniority from date of notional vacancy, causing violence to Rules 4 and 7 of 2003 Rules. [Rules 4 and 7 of National Capital Territory of Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Daman and Diu and Dadra and Nagar Haveli (Civil Service) Rules, 2003] (Paras 13, 14, 16 and 17)

(B) Service Law – Promotion – A mere existence of vacancy per se will not create a right in favour of an employee for retrospective promotion when vacancies in promotional post is specifically prescribed under rules, which also mandate clearance through a selection process – When we deal with a case of promotion, there can never be a parity between two separate sets of rules – Right to promotion and subsequent benefits and seniority would arise only with respect to rules governing said promotion, and not a different set of rules which might apply to a promoted post facilitating further promotion which is governed by a different set of rules – In present case, exercise of power by authority of granting retrospective promotion with effect from date on which actual vacancies arose is based on objective considerations and a valid classification – Promotion to a post should only be granted from date of promotion and not from date on which vacancy has arisen – Order passed by High Court set aside. (Paras 18, 19 and 21)

Facts of the case:

Present appeals are filed by the respondents before the High Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal, raising a challenge on two grounds, namely: -

i. A voluntary retiree cannot seek promotion as a matter of right sans rules governing.

ii. a mere delay in consideration of the promotion would not create a vested right over a post that quantifies the maximum accommodation in terms of numbers, involving a process of suitability.

Findings of Court:

Respondent neither on facts nor on law can claim retrospective promotion, and that too from the year 2009 being the year in which he was placed in the select list against a notional vacancy, especially when the then existing vacancy accrued only in the year 2011, when the JAG-I officers were actually inducted into IAS, against which he was promoted. As such, the promotion cannot be granted retrospectively and extended to give benefit and seniority from the date of notional vacancy, causing violence to Rule 4 and 7 of the 2003 Rules.

Result : Appeals allowed.