High Court upholds right to notional promotion after retirement

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that retired government employees are entitled to be considered for notional promotion.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar also set aside the rejection of the petitioner Jaswinder Singh’s claim for the grant of notional promotion as a Trust Engineer.

Directing the authorities to reconsider his case for notional promotion in two months, Justice Brar asserted: “The petitioner is aggrieved against his non-consideration for promotion to the post of Trust Engineer (Horticulture). It is trite law that the state cannot take undue advantage of its own inaction and promotion is legitimate expectation of an employee in service career.”

The Bench was told by the petitioner’s counsel Dhiraj Chawla that Jaswinder completed six years of service as Assistant Trust Engineer in December 2017, thereby becoming eligible for promotion under the Punjab Trust Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2015.

He represented to the respondent-authority for creating the post of Trust Engineer (Horticulture) by amending the rules. The post was created on February 15, 2024, but the petitioner retired on May 31, 2024, upon attaining the age of superannuation. In these circumstances, he could not be made to suffer due to the respondents’ administrative inaction, despite his undisputed eligibility and repeated representations. Chawla added that the petitioner’s claim was rejected on erroneous grounds. As such, the petitioner was a victim of “administrative red tape.”

The State’s stand in the matter was that promotion could not be claimed as a vested right by an employee. Notional promotion refers to the promotion of officers, whose elevation to the next post has been delayed for reasons not attributable to them.

Referring to a Division Bench judgment in a similar matter, Justice Brar observed that it was held that an employee was entitled to be considered for notional promotion even after retirement. “The present petition is allowed and the impugned order, rejecting the petitioner’s claim, is hereby set aside. Accordingly, the respondent-authority is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for notional promotion,” the court observed.

The Bench asserted that the petitioner might be promoted to the post notionally and “other benefits accruing therefrom be granted to him” if the petitioner was found suitable for promotion to the post.