Jharkhand Woman Officer Wins in Supreme Court: Retrospective Promotion and Arrears After Sham Disciplinary Proceedings

The Supreme Court on September 22, 2025 directed retrospective promotion and payment of arrears to a Jharkhand state officer who was denied timely promotion as Joint Secretary due to disciplinary proceedings that were initiated with a delay of nearly 10 years. The Court found the proceedings to be unsustainable and ordered that the officer be granted promotion benefits from the date her immediate junior was promoted.

A bench of Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran allowed the appeal filed by officer Jyotshna Singh, holding that she was entitled to be promoted as Joint Secretary from the date on which her immediate junior, Uma Mahato, was promoted. The Court directed the state authorities to issue appropriate orders and release all arrears of pay and allowances within four months. It further ordered that if the appellant has retired, her pension must be re-fixed and arrears paid accordingly. The Court also directed that she would be entitled to interest at the rate of seven percent on account of the delay, to be recovered from the officers responsible.

The appellant contended that she should have been promoted to the post of Joint Secretary from the date on which her junior was promoted, rather than being made to wait until her own promotion order was belatedly issued. Although the Jharkhand High Court had previously ordered that her case be considered retrospectively after setting aside the disciplinary proceedings, the division bench declined to grant relief on her contempt petition when the state failed to comply fully.

In compliance with the High Court’s earlier directions, Jyotshna Singh was eventually promoted to Joint Secretary only on November 30, 2022. She retired on December 31, 2023. The financial benefits and facilities of the promoted post were granted only from the date of assumption of charge, leaving her without the retrospective benefits due from the date her junior was elevated.

The state argued before the Supreme Court that the appellant was ineligible for promotion until May 2015 when she became Additional Collector, since the rules required five years of service for promotion to Joint Secretary. It was also argued that when the Departmental Promotion Committee met in March 2020, the appellant was under the effect of punishment imposed in departmental proceedings, which disqualified her for consideration.

The bench, however, rejected these arguments, holding that the punishment and the entire proceedings had already been set aside. It noted that the charge sheet was issued in 2017 in respect of an allegation dating back nearly a decade earlier and that the departmental inquiry had been conducted in violation of principles governing disciplinary proceedings. The Court characterised the proceedings as a sham and held that the appellant’s case should have been considered from the date her immediate junior was considered.

The Court also criticised the division bench of the High Court for refusing to grant relief. “We are of the view that the division bench egregiously erred in rejecting the contempt petition. Considering the long pendency as also the fact that the appellant is now retired, we were inclined to consider the merits of the claim made before the contempt court,” the bench observed.

The background of the case reveals that Jyotshna Singh, a member of the Jharkhand State Administrative Service, was posted as Block Development Officer at Chandwa when she noticed improper entries in the cash book. Proceedings were taken against the Nazir of the Block and reports were made to the Deputy Commissioner. In 2007 the Audit Team raised an objection regarding excess payment of Rs. 5.60 lakh. The Deputy Commissioner, Latehar, found no embezzlement and the State Audit Team accepted the report in 2009. Singh continued in service without interruption and received promotions.

It was only in 2017 that a charge sheet was issued, followed by an order in 2019 withholding three increments. The High Court, however, found that the interpolations in the cash book were properly explained and that there was no basis for finding misappropriation. It set aside the disciplinary proceedings and directed that Singh’s promotion be considered with retrospective effect and all consequential benefits granted.

Upholding that direction, the Supreme Court has now ordered the state to grant full retrospective benefits, re-fix her pension, and pay arrears with interest.

Case Title: Jyotshna Singh vs State of Jharkhand & Ors
Bench: Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran
Date of Judgment: September 22, 2025