The Division Bench of Jharkhand High, while hearing a petition challenging the granting of promotion to the respondent to the post of Executive Engineer observed that attaining eligibility and competition of minimum length of service are significant in cases of promotion only when the government employees fall within the zone of consideration and a government employee who has attained the qualification for promotion cannot claim a right to be promoted from the date he has attained such qualification
Brief Facts:
The state filed a petition challenging the order of the writ petition filed by the respondent, where he claimed promotion to the post of Executive Engineer and the state, thereafter was directed to pass an order of promotion to be given to the respondent.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing for the state contended that the respondent cannot be given the promotion as could not have been granted promotion from a back date according to Rule 74 of Bihar Financial Rules, 1950 as was directed by the court.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that there is a fundamental distinction between promotion and financial up-gradation in service jurisprudence and a government employee becomes entitled to financial up-gradation on the date he completes the minimum length of service and attains eligibility. It was further stated however that attaining eligibility and competition of minimum length of service is significant in cases of promotion only when the government employees fall within the zone of consideration.
It was further observed that a government employee who has attained the qualification for promotion cannot claim a right to be promoted from the date he has attained such qualification as several eligible employees are considered for a promotion to a limited number of vacancies. The court referred to the judgment in Union of India v. N.C. Murali which held that unless provided under the extant rules no government employee shall be entitled to promotion from a retrospective date.
The court however r did not interfere in the matter, the reason being that the writ petition filed by the respondent included an undertaking wherein the respondent made an unequivocal statement stating that he was not claiming any financial benefit.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition and clarified that the respondent shall not be entitled to any future benefit on account of the undertaking submitted before the Court.
Case Title: State of Jharkhand and ors. vs. Paras Nath Singh
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandrashekhar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ratnaker Bhengra
Case No.: L.P.A No. 664 of 2019
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Prabhat Kumar and Mr. Karan Shahdeo
Advocate for the Respondent: None
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
