AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of the impugned order dated 14.05.2026 (Annexure P/1), whereby his representation claiming arrears of salary of the promotional post for the period from 25.08.2005 to 16.08.2016 has been rejected. The petitioner further seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to reconsider his claim and grant the arrears of salary for the aforesaid period along with all consequential benefits.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Lab Technician at Government Engineering College, Koni, Bilaspur, vide order dated 12.03.1996. According to the applicable instructions, the petitioner was eligible for promotion to the post of Technical Assistant upon completion of five years of service; however, despite having completed the requisite period, his promotion was not considered in time and he was ultimately promoted to the post of Technical Assistant only on 16.08.2016 i.e. after lapse of about two decades. It is submitted that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing WPS No. 2522/2021 seeking grant of seniority and arrears for the period from 25.08.2005 to 16.08.2016, which was disposed of vide order dated 30.03.2026 with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide his claim in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted his claim/representation; however, the same has been rejected by the respondent No.3 vide impugned order dated 14.05.2026. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the petitioner is entitled to consideration of his claim for the arrears of salary for the period during which, according to him, his promotion was delayed.
On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the petitioner and submits that the respondent authority considered and decided the representation of the petitioner and, by the impugned order, rejected the same, inter alia, observing that the benefit of promotion cannot be granted to an employee with retrospective effect. Learned State counsel further submits that the impugned order has been passed after due consideration of the claim of the petitioner and does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness or perversity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.
From perusal of the impugned order dated 14.05.2026 (Annexure P/1) and the documents available on record, it appears that the petitioner was initially appointed as Lab Technician in the year 1996 and claims that he became eligible for promotion to the post of Technical Assistant after completion of five years of service. However, the petitioner was ultimately promoted to the said post only on 16.08.2016. The grievance of the petitioner, therefore, essentially is that on account of the alleged delay in his promotion, he is entitled to the difference of salary of the promotional post between the post of Lab Technician and Technical Assistant for the period from 25.08.2005 to 16.08.2016.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner was ultimately promoted to the post of Technical Assistant on 16.08.2016. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that at the relevant point of time, he had challenged the alleged delay in his promotion or any order in favour of him directing the respondents to grant him retrospective promotion from 25.08.2005. Mere eligibility for consideration for promotion upon completion of the prescribed qualifying service does not, by itself, confer a vested right to promotion from such date. In the absence of any order granting retrospective promotion or establishing that the petitioner was illegally denied promotion from the claimed date, the petitioner cannot, at this belated stage, claim the financial benefits attached to the promotional post for the period during which he was not holding the said post.
It is also significant that pursuant to the order passed in WPS No.
2522/2021, the competent authority considered the petitioner's representation and, vide impugned order dated 14.05.2026, rejected the claim, observing that promotion cannot be granted with retrospective effect. The petitioner has failed to point out any statutory provision or rule which would entitle him to claim the difference of salary of the promotional post for the period from 25.08.2005 to 16.08.2016, without there being a corresponding order granting him retrospective promotion for the said period.
It is pertinent to mention here that a promotion becomes operational only when the employee actually takes charge and performs the duties of the higher post. It cannot be granted simply because a vacancy existed earlier or due to administrative delays in convening a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC).
It is settled law that fence-sitters cannot be permitted to raise a dispute relating to seniority and consequential promotion or challenge the validity of an order after the matter has concluded. A Court exercising public law jurisdiction does not encourage the agitation of stale claims, particularly in matters of seniority and promotion, where the rights of third parties have crystallised in the interregnum. [See: Shiba Shankar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa, (2010) 12 SCC 471].
It is also the trite law that for the grievance relating to the promotional avenues the employee should approach the Court at least within a period of six months or latest within a year suggested for approaching the Court. The Court can refuse to exercise its extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the cases of persons who do not approach expeditiously for relief and put forward stale claim and try to unsettle the settled matters. In the case at hand, the petitioner firstly accepted the promotion for the post of Technical Assistant in the year 2016; thereafter he kept quiet for a long period for the reasons best known to him. Thus, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this case.
Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case and in view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court finds no illegality, arbitrariness or perversity in the impugned order dated 14.05.2026 (Annexure P/1), warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the present writ petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE