Bihar State Electricity Board vs. Dharamdeo Das [July 23, 2024]
Citation: 2024 INSC 549; Civil Appeal No. 6977 of 2015; Supreme Court of India
Background and Facts
The dispute centered on the claim of Dharamdeo Das, a physically challenged Scheduled Caste officer, who sought retrospective promotion from Under Secretary to Joint Secretary in the Bihar State Electricity Board (BSEB). Das argued that his promotion should be backdated to 1997, when a vacancy arose, instead of 2003, when he was actually promoted. He relied on the Board’s resolution fixing a qualifying service period (‘Kal Awadhi’) and claimed that completion of this period entitled him to promotion from the date of vacancy.
The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed his claim, holding the ‘Kal Awadhi’ was directory, not mandatory, and that administrative exigencies—including the bifurcation of Bihar and Jharkhand—contributed to the delay. The Division Bench, however, allowed Das’s appeal, granting him retrospective promotion and all consequential benefits from 1997. The Board challenged this before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Findings
Right to Be Considered for Promotion vs. Right to Promotion:
The Supreme Court reiterated that while the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right, there is no corresponding right to be promoted merely on completion of the qualifying service or because a vacancy exists. The process of promotion must follow the prescribed procedures, and only when an actual vacancy arises and the selection process is completed can promotion be granted.
No Automatic or Retrospective Promotion:
The Court clarified that a vacancy to a post does not automatically create a valuable right for an employee to claim retrospective or accelerated promotion. Promotion is effective only from the date it is actually granted, not from the date a vacancy occurs or is created. The Board’s resolution fixing the ‘Kal Awadhi’ was found to be directory and not statutory, and could not be construed as conferring an automatic right to retrospective promotion.
Administrative Exigencies and No Malafides:
The Court observed that the delay in Das’s promotion was due to administrative reasons and not due to malafide or colorable exercise of power by the Board. There was no evidence that Das was deprived of promotion due to any illegality or arbitrariness.
Setting Aside Division Bench Order:
The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench of the High Court erred in granting retrospective promotion and consequential benefits. The judgment of the Single Judge, which denied such relief, was correct and restored.
Conclusion and Significance
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench’s order, and restored the Single Judge’s decision, denying Dharamdeo Das retrospective promotion and benefits.
The judgment reaffirms that the right to be considered for promotion does not translate into a right to promotion from the date of vacancy, especially in the absence of explicit statutory rules or in the presence of administrative exigencies.
The decision underscores the principle that promotions are effective from the date of grant, not the date of vacancy, and that qualifying service periods are generally directory unless expressly made mandatory by statute.
In summary: The Supreme Court ruled that an employee cannot claim retrospective promotion merely on completing qualifying service or due to a vacancy; promotion is effective only from the date it is actually granted, and the Board’s administrative actions were found to be lawful.
RELATED Blog
0 comments