‘Promotion without higher pay incomprehensible’: Punjab and Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a promotion without corresponding enhancement in salary is legally “incomprehensible” as it defeats the very essence of advancement in service. In a significant ruling having wider ramifications in service jurisprudence, the bench clarified that promotion was not a mere change of designation, but an elevation in “rank, grade, or status, which necessarily includes a financial benefit”.

Allowing a plea filed by Sumer Paul and other employees of Punjab Scheduled Castes Land Development and Finance Corporation, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar asserted: “Promotion is not merely a change in designation but an advancement to a higher rank, which carries higher status and better emoluments.”

The bench warned against the adverse implications of such practices by asserting, “If promotion ends up in lesser pay than the feeder post, the very concept of promotion becomes illusory and meaningless and such promotion is reduced to penalty than being a reward for seniority and meritorious service. Further, such promotion would be counterproductive to the very concept of promotion, which is to incentivise and encourage efficiency and merit. Such an approach cannot be countenanced, which is unconscionably archaic and devoid of balance and nuance.”

The bench, during the course of hearing, was told that the petitioners, serving as Assistant District Managers in the feeder cadre with a pay scale of Rs 800-1,400, were promoted as District Managers. Ironically, the higher post carried a lower pay scale of Rs 700-1,200, leaving them drawing less salary than their juniors who continued in the feeder cadre.

The bench warned against the adverse implications of such practices by asserting: “If promotion ends up in lesser pay than the feeder post, the very concept of promotion becomes illusory and meaningless and such promotion is reduced to penalty than being a reward for seniority and meritorious service. Further, such promotion would be counterproductive to the very concept of promotion, which is to incentivise and encourage efficiency and merit. Such an approach cannot be countenanced which is unconscionably archaic and devoid of balance and nuance.”

Taking note of the anomaly, Justice observed the petitioners were admittedly promoted from the feeder cadre and were having a higher pay scale on a lower post. Subsequently upon promotion their pay scale was lesser than what they received on the lower post. “This would also make them having lower pay scale than their juniors in the feeder cadre who despite being junior would be earning more than their seniors which is wholly discriminatory and violates the principles of equity and fair play.”

Justice Brar ruled that promotion and higher pay were “directly proportional to each other” and a denial of the linkage was violative of fundamental principles of service law. Before parting with the case, the bench directed the corporation to upgrade the pay scale of the petitioners in the promoted post in accordance with its own office order of February 6, 1989. The court further ordered that all consequential benefits accrued from the date of their promotion as District Managers be released to them within six weeks.