Tanya Gupta
Published on: March 9, 2022 at 20:17 IST
In the case of Union of India Vs. Manpreet Singh Poonam, it was held by the Supreme Court Bench of Justice SK Kaul and Justice MM Sundresh that the mere Existence of a Vacancy does not imply an Employee’s Right to a Retroactive Promotion.
MS Poonam held the Position of Junior Administrative Grade-II (JAG-II) and Retired Voluntarily in 2010, while Suresh Gupta was Promoted to Junior Administrative Grade -I and Regularised against the Service Under Rule 4 of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Daman and Diu, and Dadra and Nagar Haveli Rules of 2003.
The High Court pronounced that MS Poonam is qualified for Relief as per the Department of Personnel and Training’s (DoPT) Circular on 01.08.2012 facilitating a Retired Officer qualified to a Pay Upgradation on the due date.
The Court pronounced in Gupta’s Case that contemplating the Fact that he was not considered for a Promotion for a long time, there is no reasoning as to Denying him the Promotion from 01/10/2009.
The High Court’s Judgement was challenged in the Supreme Court by the Union of India.
In MS Poonam’s Case, the Court granted the Appeal and observed that since the Respondent was not in Service at that time, he was appropriately not considered in Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC).
The Bench allowed the Union of India’s Appeal in Gupta’s Case and pronounced that just because the Vacancy exists it will not create a Right in Favour of an Employee for a Retroactive Promotion.
The Court Elucidated further that a Right to Promotion and other Benefits only arise if they are in relation to the Governing Rules of that specific Promotion.
Case No.: CA 517-518 of 2017
Also Read:
