A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Dr Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal allowed a writ petition filed by the Union Territory administration and the Director General of Police, quashing the tribunal’s judgment dated June 24, 2022, and restoring a 2021 Police Headquarters order that had rejected Inspector Nissar Ahmad Mir’s claim for retrospective promotion with effect from 1998.
The government had challenged the tribunal’s order directing it to grant retrospective promotion to Mir from 1998. The officer had been recommended for an out-of-turn promotion on operational grounds in 1998 but was officially promoted to the rank of Inspector with immediate effect on September 29, 2006, following an earlier round of litigation.
He later sought retrospective effect from 1998, citing the case of another officer who had received similar relief. However, Police Headquarters rejected his representation in 2010. The officer remained silent for nearly seven years before reviving his claim after the other officer secured retrospective promotion, eventually obtaining relief from the tribunal in 2022.
Setting aside the tribunal’s order, the High Court observed that a recommendation for promotion, even by a competent authority, remains a step in the administrative decision-making process and does not create an enforceable right.
Justice Nargal, writing for the Bench, observed, “A recommendation, even if made by the competent authority, does not crystallise into an enforceable or indefeasible right to out-of-turn promotion.”
Addressing the officer’s argument that he should receive the same benefit as another employee who had secured retrospective promotion, the court said that out-of-turn promotions depend on the facts and circumstances of each individual case.
Rejecting the mechanical application of the principle of equality in such matters, the Bench observed, “There cannot be any parity so far as claiming out-of-turn promotion is concerned. The facts differ from person to person.”
The High Court further held that the benefit extended to one employee does not automatically entitle another to similar treatment, as such promotions are assessed on the basis of circumstances peculiar to each case. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Bench held that the principle of parity cannot be applied mechanically to claims for out-of-turn promotion.
The court also criticised the tribunal for failing to examine the chronological history of the litigation and the officer’s prolonged silence after Police Headquarters rejected his claim in 2010.
It noted that the officer had revived his demand only after another employee was granted retrospective promotion. The Bench observed that the unexplained delay and failure to pursue legal remedies in time could not be overlooked.
The court noted, “His conduct cannot be considered in isolation from the earlier adverse decision or from the fact that the claim was sought to be revived after a substantial interval.”
The High Court held that the officer’s conduct amounted to acquiescence and that an earlier rejection of a claim could not be circumvented merely by invoking parity after a substantial interval.
Concluding that the tribunal had failed to properly consider material facts, the earlier rejection of the claim and the prolonged delay, the High Court allowed the government’s petition, quashed the tribunal’s judgment dated June 24, 2022, and restored the 2021 Police Headquarters order rejecting the claim for retrospective promotion.
The ruling leaves the officer’s promotion effective from September 29, 2006, rather than retrospectively from 1998. (KDC)
