news details |
|
|
| In-charge status no ground to deny promotion arrears: HC | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Oct 28: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that merely holding a higher post in an in-charge capacity cannot be a ground to deny an eligible government employee arrears and consequential service benefits upon regularisation of promotion, while dismissing a petition filed by the Union Territory administration challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) judgment.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice M. A. Chowdhary upheld the Tribunal's December 2, 2025 judgment directing the regularisation of promotion of Dev Raj, an employee of the Public Works Department, as Section Officer with retrospective effect, along with consequential monetary and pensionary benefits in accordance with the applicable service rules.
The controversy arose after Dev Raj, who was initially appointed as Junior Assistant in the Designs, Inspections and Quality Control Wing of the Public Works Department on February 21, 1979, was subsequently promoted as Senior Assistant and Head Assistant. He was assigned the charge of Section Officer in July 2000, with effect from August 1, 2000, but his promotion remained unregularised despite repeated departmental recommendations.
The Tribunal had directed the Government to regularise his promotion from the date he was placed as In-charge Section Officer or the date he became eligible for promotion, whichever was later. It also directed consideration of his subsequent promotion to Administrative Officer, along with consequential benefits including arrears, allowances and revision of pensionary entitlements.
Appearing for the UT administration, Additional Advocate General Ravinder Gupta contended that the employee had acquired eligibility for regular promotion only on November 21, 2011, and that merely discharging duties against a higher post did not confer any vested right to retrospective regularisation.
Advocate Nitin Bhasin, appearing for Dev Raj, defended the Tribunal's judgment.
After examining the service record and applicable recruitment rules, the Division Bench observed that the employee had already completed more than nine years of service as Head Assistant when he was placed as In-charge Section Officer on August 1, 2000, against the prescribed requirement of five years.
The Court noted that the Government had failed to demonstrate how the employee lacked eligibility for promotion on the relevant date.
The Bench further observed that although an in-charge arrangement does not automatically confer a right to regular promotion, the employee's eligibility under the recruitment rules and repeated departmental recommendations could not be ignored.
The High Court also took note of the administration's prolonged failure to decide the employee's claim despite recommendations made by departmental authorities on several occasions.
The Bench held that the administration had failed to establish any illegality or infirmity in the Tribunal's findings warranting interference in writ jurisdiction.
Significantly, the Court observed that the mere fact that Dev Raj had initially been assigned the charge of Section Officer on an officiating basis could not, by itself, justify denying him arrears accruing from his regular promotion with effect from August 1, 2000.
However, the Bench clarified that the Tribunal's direction to consider his promotion to Administrative Officer did not confer an automatic right to such promotion, which would remain governed by the applicable recruitment rules.
Dismissing the Government's writ petition, the High Court directed the authorities to implement the Tribunal's judgment in accordance with its terms and the applicable service rules. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
