National Capital Territory of Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshdweep, Daman and Diu and Dadra and Nagar Haveli (Civil Service) Rules, 2003 – r. 4, 7 – Claim by respondent-retired seeking benefit of pay-upgradation – Held: It is a trite law that once an officer retires voluntarily there is cessation of jural relation between the employer and the employee and such an employee cannot seek to agitate his past, as well as, future rights, if any, sans the prescription of rules – Service Law.
National Capital Territory of Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshdweep, Daman and Diu and Dadra and Nagar Haveli (Civil Service) Rules, 2003 – r. 4, 7 – Claim by respondent-in-service seeking the effect of promotion so granted from retrospective effect – Held: A mere existence of the vacancy per se will not create a right in favour of an employee for retrospective promotion when the vacancies in the promotional post is specifically prescribed under the rules – Since the respondent-in-service was given promotion after successful consideration by the department promotion committee, appellant rightly fixed the promotion with the year of actual vacancy, as per rules – Service Law.
Service Law: Promotion – Differentiating applicability of two set of Rules – A right of promotion and subsequent benefits and seniority would arise only with respect to the rules governing the said promotion and not a different set of rules which might apply to a promoted post facilitating further promotion which is governed by different set of rules.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Differential pay scale along with a process of selection qua suitability fixing eligibility criteria are the factors to determine whether a particular post is the same as the other or a promotional one. Such an exercise is not required since the rules themselves are specific. When the rules are specific and clear, there is no need for interpretation which may lead to a case of judicial legislation. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the reasoning of the CAT, though not challenged is unsustainable, since there is no occasion to challenge it with the dismissal of the applications filed also holds good. [Para 13][771-G-H; 772-A-B]
2. It is trite law that once an officer retires voluntarily, there is cessation of jural relationship resorting to a “golden handshake” between the employer and employee. Such a former employee cannot seek to agitate his past, as well as future rights, if any, sans the prescription of rules. This would include the enhanced pay scale. The Respondent in Civil Appeal No.517 of 2017 was rightly not considered in the DPC in 2012 since he was no longer in service at the relevant point of time. The High Court has committed an error in relying upon a circular, which has got no application at all, particularly in the light of the finding that the court is dealing with a case of promotion simpliciter as against up- gradation of any nature. [Para 16][774-C-D]
3. On facts, there is no dispute that Respondent in Civil Appeal No.518 of 2017 was given promotion after the successful consideration by the DPC. On such clearance the appellant has rightly fixed the promotion with the year of actual vacancy, as per rules. Thus, the Respondent neither on facts nor on law can claim retrospective promotion, and that too from the year 2009 being the year in which he was placed in the select list against a notional vacancy, especially when the then existing vacancy accrued only in the year 2011, when the JAG-I officers were actually inducted into IAS, against which he was promoted. As such, the promotion cannot be granted retrospectively and extended to give benefit and seniority from the date of notional vacancy, causing violence to Rule 4 and 7 of the 2003 Rules. A mere existence of vacancy per se will not create a right in favour of an employee for retrospective promotion when the vacancies in the promotional post is specifically prescribed under the rules, which also mandate the clearance through a selection process. When dealing with a case of promotion, there can never be a parity between two separate sets of rules. In other words, a right to promotion and subsequent benefits and seniority would arise only with respect to the rules governing the said promotion, and not a different set of rules which might apply to a promoted post facilitating further promotion which is governed by a different set of rules. In the present case, the authority acting within the rules has rightly granted promotion after clearance of DPC on 17.04.2012 with effect from 01.07.2011, when the actual vacancies arose, which in any case is a benefit granted to the Respondent in Civil Appeal No.518 of 2017. This exercise of power by the authority of granting retrospective promotion with effect from the date on which actual vacancies arose is based on objective considerations and a valid classification. [Paras 17, 18][774-E-H; 775-A-B] Union of India v. KK Vadhera and Ors., [1989] Supp 2 SCC 625 : [1989] 1 Suppl. SCR 751; Ganga Vishan Gujrati and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, (2019) 16 SCC
28 : [2019] 11 SCR 444; Ajay Kumar Shukla and Ors. v. Arvind Rai and Ors. 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1195 – relied on
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.