IBC Moratorium | Criminal Court Cannot Direct Disbursal Of Corporate Debtor's Assets To Complainant Pending CIRP: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Failure To Implead Company As Accused Renders Complaint Fatally Defective; Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Used To Cure Such Fundamental Defect: Supreme Court 'Last Seen Theory' Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Acquits Man In Murder Case 'Every Lawyer Has A Duty To Act Decently': Supreme Court Modifies Suspension Of Advocate For Misconduct In Court Premises Mere Declaration Of 'Transitional Area' Under Article 243-Q(1)(a) Of Constitution Does Not Automatically Convert Rural Area Into Urban Area: Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Externment Order, Terms Non-Compliance With Natural Justice A "Travesty Of Constitutional Guarantees" 'Certiorari Is Not Appellate': Supreme Court Rejects Plea In Decades-Old Co-operative Society Membership Dispute Victim Must Authorize Settlement: Supreme Court Rules Informants Cannot Quash Criminal Cases Without Real Victim's Consent State Cannot Pick And Choose: Supreme Court Restores Right To Retrospective Regularisation For Daily Wage Employees Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment of Plaint After Commencement Of Trial Cannot Be Allowed Without Proving Due Diligence: Supreme Court Discrepancy Between Ocular Testimony And Medical Evidence Creates Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court Order VI Rule 17 & Order VIII Rule 6A CPC | Counter Claim Cannot Be Permitted After Trial Concludes When Party Fails To Pay Court Fees Initially: Supreme Court Nominee Holds Insurance Proceeds In Trust For Legal Heirs; Supreme Court Directs Equitable Distribution Pending Succession Proceedings PC Act | Court Must Impose Statutory Minimum Imprisonment Upon Conviction Under Sections 7 And 13(2): Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Official Caught In Factional Crossfire Retaliatory Counterblasts Cannot Be Used As Weapons Of Harassment: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Complaint Over Civil Land Dispute Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Court Must Defer Question Of Ad-Valorem Court Fee To Evidence When Possession Status Is Disputed: Supreme Court Minor Shortfall In Earnest Money Deposit Does Not Vitiate Auction Sale If It Causes No Prejudice: Supreme Court 'Flimsy And Untenable': Supreme Court Cancels Bail Of Accused In Gruesome 'Petrol-Burning' Murder Case Parity Is Not A Mechanical Mathematical Formula: Supreme Court Rejects Bail Plea Of Murder Accused Article 142 Constitution of India | Supreme Court May Protect Retiral Benefits Of Employees Whose Caste Certificates Are Invalidated In Exceptional Cases Omission Of CGST Rule 96(10) Applies To All Pending Proceedings: Supreme Court Mere Marking Does Not Prove Contents: Supreme Court Clarifies Evidence Law In Testamentary Proceedings Arbitral Tribunal Under Section 16 Of A&C Act Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Determine Arbitrability Of Claims Including Excepted Matters: Supreme Court Arbitration Agreement Can Be Incorporated Into A Personal Guarantee Through A Composite Transaction: Supreme Court

Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion

23 September 2024 11:46 AM

By: sayum


The Supreme Court has set aside a High Court decision granting retrospective promotion to Dharamdeo Das, a retired employee of the Bihar State Electricity Board (BSEB). In a detailed judgment, the Court emphasized the distinction between the right to be considered for promotion and an automatic right to promotion upon completion of the eligibility period. The judgment, delivered by Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, highlights that seniority and promotion cannot be granted retrospectively unless explicitly provided by the service rules.

Dharamdeo Das, who was promoted to the position of Joint Secretary on March 5, 2003, argued that his promotion should be effective from July 29, 1997, the date he completed the eligibility period for promotion (Kal Awadhi). Initially, his plea was rejected by the Single Judge of the Patna High Court, but the Division Bench later ruled in his favor, prompting the BSEB to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court underscored that the completion of the Kal Awadhi (eligibility period) does not entitle an employee to automatic promotion. "No employee can lay a claim for being promoted to the next higher post merely on completing the minimum qualifying service. Such an interpretation would be fallacious," the judgment stated.

The Court noted that the BSEB had reduced the number of sanctioned posts of Joint Secretary from six to three due to administrative reasons following the bifurcation of Bihar and Jharkhand. The Court found no error in the BSEB's decision not to promote Das retrospectively from 1997, emphasizing that promotions must align with actual vacancies and not just eligibility.

The judgment reiterated that while the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, it does not translate into an automatic right to promotion. The Court cited precedents to bolster this position, stating, "Retrospective seniority cannot be granted to an employee from a date when he was not even borne in the cadre."

Justice Hima Kohli remarked, "The right for being considered for promotion is a fundamental right, but it cannot be treated as a vested right to be promoted automatically upon completion of the eligibility period. The administrative decisions and exigencies must also be taken into account."

By setting aside the High Court's decision, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the legal principles governing promotions and seniority, particularly the non-retrospective nature of such advancements unless explicitly stated in the service rules. This ruling clarifies the boundaries of employees' rights concerning promotions and the administrative discretion of public sector entities.

Date of Decision: July 23, 2024

Bihar State Electricity Board & Others vs. Dharamdeo Das

Latest Legal News