Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court, on November 27, 2024, stated that the promotion of an employee only became effective upon the assumption of duties on the promotional post and not on the date of the occurrence of the vacancy or the date of recommendation.

A bench of Justices P. S. Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta allowed an appeal filed by the Government of West Bengal against the Calcutta High Court's judgment of February 1, 2023, which had upheld an order of the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal.

The appellant had been aggrieved by the direction that respondent Dr. Amal Satpathi, though not entitled to retrospective promotion after his superannuation, should have been awarded notional financial benefits for the promotional post of Chief Scientific Officer as of his retirement date, i.e., December 31, 2016.

They had questioned the correctness of the direction, contending that no financial benefits, even on a notional basis, were admissible to the respondent, who had never assumed charge of the promotional post.

Their counsel had pointed out that final approval for the Chief Scientific Officer position had been granted on January 4, 2017, after the respondent’s superannuation on December 31, 2016. Thus, the promotion could not have been effected during his service tenure. Therefore, in the absence of any specific rule permitting retrospective promotion, the effective date of promotion ought to have been the date on which it was granted, not the date of the vacancy.

Their counsel also had submitted that respondent No. 1 had no legally enforceable right to receive a higher pay scale without having assumed the post and referred to the 2005 State’s Promotion Policy, which mandated that promotions were effective only upon the assumption of charge.

On the contrary, respondent No. 1 had submitted that he had been serving as Principal Scientific Officer since March 24, 2008, and could have been promoted to Chief Scientific Officer as early as 2013 had the Department submitted a timely proposal to fill the vacancy.

He also had submitted that the Department had failed to timely provide the confidential reports and other details of respondent No. 1 to the PSC by April 13, 2016, as required under the Rules. This inaction, for reasons best known to the officials concerned, had led to a significant delay in the promotion process. Thus, respondent No. 1 had been deprived of his rightful claim to the fruits of promotion from the date of occurrence of the vacancy as per his entitlement.

After hearing the counsel for the parties, the bench referred to Rule 54(1)(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules, which made it clear that promotion could not have been retrospectively granted after retirement, as it required the actual assumption of duties and responsibilities of the promotional post.

"In the present case, since respondent no 1 superannuated before the final approval of his promotion, he could not have formally assume the charge of the promotional post of Chief Scientific Officer. Therefore, although respondent no 1 was recommended for promotion, Rule 54(1)(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules precludes him from getting the financial benefits of the promotional post without having taken on the responsibilities of the said post i.e. Chief Scientific Officer," the bench said.

The court stated it was a well-settled principle that promotion became effective from the date it was granted, rather than from the date a vacancy arose or the post was created.

"While the courts have recognised the right to be considered for promotion as not only a statutory right but also a fundamental right, there is no fundamental right to the promotion itself," the bench said.

In the instant case, the court stated, it was evident that while respondent no 1 was recommended for promotion before his retirement, he could not assume the duties of the Chief Scientific Officer.

"Rule 54(1)(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules, clearly stipulates that an employee must assume the responsibilities of a higher post to draw the corresponding pay, thus, preventing posthumous or retrospective promotions in the absence of an enabling provision," the court said.

The bench stated that while it recognised respondent no 1’s right to be considered for promotion, "which was a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India, he did not hold an absolute right to the promotion itself."

The court also referred to the legal precedents which established that promotion only becomes effective upon the assumption of duties on the promotional post and not on the date of the occurrence of the vacancy or the date of recommendation.

Considering that respondent no 1 superannuated before his promotion was effectuated, he was not entitled to retrospective financial benefits associated with the promotional post of Chief Scientific Officer, as he did not serve in that capacity, the court said.

The court thus reversed the judgment and order of the High Court and the tribunal, holding those as unsustainable in the eyes of law.

Case Title: Government of West Bengal & Ors Vs Dr Amal Satpathi & Ors