HC raps Haryana for ‘disturbing pattern’ of administrative apathy; orders notional promotion from 1995

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has rapped the State of Haryana for “disturbing pattern of administrative apathy and procedural impropriety” in denying promotion to a revenue official nearly three decades ago despite his clear eligibility.

Holding that the official had been “unjustifiably denied promotion to the post of Kanungo at the time when his juniors were promoted on April 24, 1995,” Justice Sandeep Moudgil directed that he be treated as promoted to the post of Kanungo with effect from that date, along with consequential benefits of seniority, arrears, and pensionary entitlements.

The order came in a petition filed in 1996, challenging the State’s decision to withhold promotion despite the petitioner’s eligibility and satisfactory record. The High Court directed that the entire exercise of granting benefits be completed within three months.

‘Disturbing pattern of apathy’

Justice Moudgil observed: “The facts of the case lay bare a disturbing pattern of administrative apathy and procedural impropriety.” The court noted that the petitioner, who joined service as a Patwari in 1958 and belonged to a Backward Class, fully satisfied the relaxed qualification criteria. The State itself relaxed the matriculation requirement to “Middle pass” for Patwaris who had joined before January 4, 1966, through an order dated February 12, 1985,

“Therefore the petitioner fully satisfied the educational qualification criteria as relaxed and was otherwise eligible for promotion, having also passed the Kanungo departmental examination in 1984,” the court observed, adding that the petitioner did not ask for a concession but invoked his right which was denied.

Adverse entries ‘dead letter’

The State, during the course of arguments, cited adverse Annual Confidential Report (ACR) entries from 1970–71, 1982–83, and 1985–86, as well as the pendency of a criminal case, to reject the petitioner’s claim. But the court found the rejection “warranted judicial scrutiny.”

“It is a well-established principle that adverse entries in the ACRs must be communicated to the concerned employee in a timely manner, enabling an opportunity to represent and improve,” Justice Moudgil asserted.

Citing settled law, Justice Moudgil reiterated that “an uncommunicated adverse entry is a dead letter and cannot be resurrected at the time of promotion to the detriment of the employee.”

The Bench added that the adverse remarks for 1970–71 and 1985–86 had never been communicated, while those for 1982–83 had been expunged by the competent authority in 1993. “Hence, no adverse material could have legally been relied upon to deny promotion,” the court held.

Pendency of criminal case no ground

The Bench also rejected the reliance on a pending criminal case as a ground to deny promotion, reiterating that “mere pendency of a criminal case cannot be a ground to withhold or deny promotion unless the employee is convicted or found guilty after due process.”

Justice Moudgil asserted that the petitioner’s eventual promotion on February 23, 1996—after filing of the writ petition and multiple representations—did not undo the wrong committed earlier. “Justice delayed, even when granted, cannot erase the fact that for a crucial period, the petitioner stood sidelined while his juniors marched ahead,” the court observed. “He did not seek indulgence but equality, and denial of such promotion, particularly when based on legally unsustainable grounds, amounts to arbitrary action violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.”

Delay defeats purpose of service rules

Justice Moudgil also expressed concern over systemic delays and lapses by observing: “This Court is also mindful that delays and procedural lapses in deciding representations and enforcing relaxation orders undermine the very purpose of such service regulations and create a sense of injustice among eligible employees.”

Concluding the judgment, Justice Moudgil ordered: “The respondents are hereby directed to treat the petitioner as having been promoted to the post of Kanungo with effect from April 24, 1995 – the date on which his juniors were promoted. Consequently, the petitioner shall be assigned seniority above a respondent-officer and other juniors promoted on the date and be entitled to all consequential benefits, including arrears of pay, pensionary benefits and other admissible service benefits.”