Supreme Court clarifies promotion rights for voluntary retirees and delays: Union of India vs. Manpreet Singh Poonam (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 8 March 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 207

Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., M.M. Sundresh, J.
Can a government employee who voluntarily retires later claim a promotion they were eligible for before retirement? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, along with whether a delay in considering an employee for promotion grants them a right to that promotion. This case examines the nuances of promotion rights, particularly for those who have taken voluntary retirement and those who have experienced delays in the promotion process. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M.M. Sundresh.

Case Background

The case involves two officers, both of whom were working as Junior Administrative Grade-II (JAG-II) officers. The first officer, Mr. Manpreet Singh Poonam, voluntarily retired in 2010. The second officer, Mr. Suresh Gupta, was promoted to Junior Administrative Grade-I (JAG-I) on an ad hoc basis in December 2011, which was regularized in April 2012 with effect from July 1, 2011. This promotion was in line with the National Capital Territory of Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Daman and Diu and Dadra and Nagar Haveli (Civil Service) Rules, 2003, which limit the number of JAG-I posts to 10% of the total sanctioned posts. The sanctioned strength was increased to 472 following an amendment on October 1, 2009.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Both officers filed separate applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The CAT dismissed their applications, stating that the rules did not allow for the relief they sought. The officers then filed writ petitions in the High Court. The High Court allowed the petitions, ruling that Mr. Poonam was entitled to the benefit of “pay-upgradation” as per a circular issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT). In Mr. Gupta’s case, the High Court held that he should not be denied promotion from October 1, 2009, due to the delay in considering his promotion. The Union of India then appealed to the Supreme Court against these orders.

Legal Framework

The case is governed by the National Capital Territory of Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Daman and Diu and Dadra and Nagar Haveli (Civil Service) Rules, 2003.

• Rule 4.1 of the 2003 Rules: This rule specifies the grades, strength, and pay scales of duty posts. It also states that 10% of the sanctioned strength of posts shall be non-functional grades of Junior Administrative Grade-I.
  
  “The duty posts included in the various grades, their number and the scales of pay attached to them on the date of commencement of these rules shall be as specified in Schedule I: Provided that ten per cent and twenty per cent of the sanctioned strength of the posts in the Service shall be non-functional grades of Junior Administrative Grade-I and Selection Grade respectively, and these shall be operated within the respective number of posts specified in Parts B and C of Schedule I: Provided further that the number of posts in Junior Administrative Grade I shall not exceed the total number of sanctioned posts in the Junior Administrative Grade in the scale of pay of Rs.12,000-16,500.”
• Rule 7.3, 7.4, and 7.5 of the 2003 Rules: These rules govern the future maintenance of the service, stating that vacancies in JAG-I shall be filled by promotion from officers in the immediate lower grade (JAG-II) with the minimum qualifying service. Promotions are to be made in order of seniority, subject to the rejection of the unfit, based on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC).
  
  “All the vacancies in the grades of Junior Administrative Grade-I, Junior Administrative Grade-II and Selection Grade shall be filled by promotion from amongst the officers in the immediate respective lower grade with the minimum qualifying service as specified in Schedule III.”
  
  “The promotion to the Junior Administrative Grade-I and Selection Grade shall be made in the order of seniority subject to rejection of unfit.”
  
  “The selection in each case under sub-rule (4) shall be made on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee.”
• Schedule I of the 2003 Rules: This schedule details the name, number, and scale of pay of duty posts in the service.
• Schedule III of the 2003 Rules: This schedule specifies the eligibility for promotion, stating that a regularly appointed JAG-II officer with a minimum of eighteen years of approved service is eligible for promotion to JAG-I.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments (Union of India):

• The High Court erred in granting relief to Mr. Poonam, who had voluntarily retired in 2010. The promotion was granted in 2012 against vacancies that arose in 2011.
• The circular relied upon by the High Court for pay upgradation does not apply to promotions.
• There is no vested right to a promotional post without actual vacancies. The migration of officers to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) created vacancies in JAG-I in 2011, not 2009.
• Promotion from JAG-II to JAG-I is governed by the 2003 Rules, which require an actual vacancy and a DPC.
• Mr. Gupta was appointed to JAG-I on an ad hoc basis in December 2011 and regularized in April 2012 with effect from July 1, 2011. He cannot claim retrospective promotion from 2009.
• The 2003 Rules clearly indicate that JAG-I is a promotional post from the feeder category of JAG-II.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• Mr. Poonam argued that he was entitled to an upgradation, and therefore, consequential benefits.
• Mr. Gupta argued that the delay by the appellants should not cause him to suffer. He was at Serial No. 1 in the select list for 2009 and should be appointed from 2009, not 2011.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether a voluntary retiree can seek promotion as a matter of right without specific rules.
2. Whether a delay in considering promotion creates a vested right over a post that quantifies the maximum accommodation in terms of numbers, involving a process of suitability.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court followed Ajay Kumar Shukla and Ors. v. Arvind Rai and Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1195*, stating that the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right, but there is no right to promotion itself.
• The Court followed Director, Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty [(1991) 2 SCC 295]*, stating that there is no fundamental right to promotion, but an employee has a right to be considered for promotion.
• The Court followed Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab [(1999) 7 SCC 209]*, stating that if a person satisfies the eligibility and criteria for promotion but is not considered, there is a violation of their fundamental right.
• The Court followed Union of India v. KK Vadhera and Ors., 1989 Supp (2) SCC 625*, stating that promotion should be effective from the date it is granted, not from the date the vacancy arose.
• The Court followed Ganga Vishan Gujrati and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, (2019) 16 SCC 28*, stating that retrospective seniority cannot be granted from a date when the employee was not in the cadre.
• The Court followed Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers’ Assn. v. State of Maharashtra, (1990) 2 SCC 715*, stating that seniority is counted from the date of initial entry into the grade.
• The Court followed State of Bihar v. Akhouri Sachindra Nath, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 334*, stating that seniority is counted from the date of initial entry into the grade.
• The Court followed State of Uttaranchal v. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, (2007) 1 SCC 683*, stating that seniority is counted from the date of initial entry into the grade.
• The Court followed Pawan Pratap Singh v. Reevan Singh, (2011) 3 SCC 267*, stating that seniority cannot be reckoned from the date of occurrence of the vacancy unless expressly provided by the rules.
• The Court followed P. Sudhakar Rao v. U. Govinda Rao, (2013) 8 SCC 693*, reaffirming that retrospective seniority cannot be granted from a date when the employee was not in the cadre.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized several points in its reasoning:

• Rules and Regulations: The court emphasized that the 2003 Rules are clear and specific, and there is no need for interpretation that may lead to judicial legislation.
• Promotional Post: The court clarified that JAG-I is a promotional post from JAG-II, not a mere upgradation.
• No Vested Right: The court reiterated that no officer has a vested right to a promotional post, only a right to be considered for promotion.
• Voluntary Retirement: The court emphasized that a voluntary retiree cannot claim past or future rights, including promotion, without specific rules.
• Actual Vacancy: The court held that promotion should be granted from the date of the actual vacancy, not a notional one.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio Table

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in granting relief to the respondents. The Court emphasized that a voluntary retiree cannot claim promotion as a matter of right, and a delay in considering promotion does not create a vested right to the post from a retrospective date. The Court also clarified that JAG-I is a promotional post from JAG-II, not a mere upgradation.

The Court stated, “It is trite law that once an officer retires voluntarily, there is cessation of jural relationship resorting to a “golden handshake” between the employer and employee. Such a former employee cannot seek to agitate his past, as well as future rights, if any, sans the prescription of rules.”

The Court further noted, “A mere existence of vacancy per se will not create a right in favour of an employee for retrospective promotion when the vacancies in the promotional post is specifically prescribed under the rules, which also mandate the clearance through a selection process.”

The Court also observed, “We do not know of any law or any rule under which a promotion is to be effective from the date of creation of the promotional post After a post falls vacant for any reason whatsoever, a promotion to that post should be from the date the promotion is granted and not from the date on which such post falls vacant.”

The Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court’s orders.

Key Takeaways

• A government employee who voluntarily retires cannot claim a promotion they were eligible for before retirement unless specific rules prescribe so.
• A delay in considering an employee for promotion does not grant them a right to that promotion from a retrospective date.
• Promotional posts are distinct from upgradation and are subject to specific rules and procedures.
• Promotions are effective from the date of the actual vacancy, not from a notional vacancy or the date when the select list was prepared.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the orders passed by the High Court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a voluntary retiree cannot claim a promotion as a matter of right, and a delay in considering promotion does not create a vested right to the post from a retrospective date. This judgment reinforces the principle that promotions are governed by specific rules and are effective from the date of actual vacancy. The court reiterated the settled position of law that the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right, but there is no right to promotion itself. This judgment also clarifies that a promotion is effective from the date it is granted and not from the date when the vacancy arose.

Conclusion

In the case of Union of India vs. Manpreet Singh Poonam, the Supreme Court clarified that a voluntary retiree cannot claim promotion as a matter of right and that a delay in considering promotion does not create a vested right to the post. The court emphasized the importance of following specific rules and procedures for promotions and reiterated that promotions are effective from the date of actual vacancy. This judgment sets a clear precedent for service law matters related to promotions and voluntary retirements.