The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that an employee’s entitlement to a promotion, decided upon during their regular service, cannot be nullified by a subsequent extension of their service tenure. The court emphasized that a claim to promotion that has already solidified cannot be defeated by service extensions implemented later.
Information was available with The Chenab Times that the court’s directive came while allowing a petition filed by a former assistant librarian associated with the Patiala Municipal Corporation. Justice Namit Kumar, presiding over the case, ordered that the petitioner’s claim for promotion to the librarian post, which had been approved on January 8, 2020, should be considered with all consequential benefits. The court clarified that the restriction prohibiting promotion during an extended service period could not be applied to negate a promotion claim that had already been established before the employee’s retirement.
The court observed that the mere fact that the petitioner was serving on an extension from February 1, 2020, and that a communication regarding service matters was issued subsequently on March 5, 2020, would not undermine her claim for promotion to the post of librarian, which had effectively crystalized on January 8, 2020.
The core of the dispute stemmed from a resolution passed by the Municipal Corporation’s General House on January 8, 2020, which approved the promotion of assistant librarians to the post of librarian. The petitioner had been promoted to the rank of assistant librarian on September 11, 2014, and subsequently completed five years in that position by September 2019. Records indicated that she met the requisite conditions for promotion and was deemed suitable for the higher position.
The Municipal Corporation had sought guidance from the state government regarding the promotion process, as its Establishment Branch reportedly lacked the relevant rules. In response, the Local Government Department, via a communication dated March 5, 2020, stated that the corporation possessed the authority to decide service matters for its non-provincial employees. However, this power was contingent upon adherence to applicable rules and instructions, and crucially, the employee should not be on an extension of service at the time of promotion. The department’s communication explicitly stated that the power to appoint and decide other service matters for non-provincial employees rested with the Municipal Corporation as the competent authority.
Legal proceedings revealed that the employee reached the age of superannuation on January 31, 2020, and subsequently received an extension of service commencing February 1, 2020. This extension concluded on September 30, 2020, after the government revised its extension policy. Despite subsequent governmental communications reiterating that promotion claims could be considered from the date of the House resolution, the Municipal Corporation formally rejected the petitioner’s claim on April 27, 2022. The Corporation cited the restriction on promotions during extended service periods as the basis for its decision.
In rejecting the Municipal Corporation’s stance, Justice Kumar asserted that the decision to promote the petitioner was made on January 8, 2020, during her period of regular service. The court found that the restriction stipulated in a notification dated October 30, 2015, which pertained to promotions during extended service, could not be applied to nullify the petitioner’s claim under these specific circumstances.
Justice Kumar further elaborated that the embargo imposed by the October 30, 2015, notification against promotions during an extended service period was inapplicable to defeat the petitioner’s claim, given that the promotion entitlement had already accrued prior to the extension.
Consequently, the court mandated that the respondents consider the petitioner’s claim for notional promotion to the librarian post with retrospective effect from January 8, 2020. The order also stipulated that she should be granted all associated pensionary and consequential benefits. The calculation and disbursement of these benefits were required to be completed within three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of the court’s order.
❤️ Support Independent Journalism
Your contribution keeps our reporting free, fearless, and accessible to everyone.
Or make a one-time donation
Secure via Razorpay • 12 monthly payments • Cancel anytime before next cycle
(We don't allow anyone to copy content. For Copyright or Use of Content related questions, visit here.)
The Chenab Times News Desk
