SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High 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