Promotional Benefits Can't Be Denied Post-Retirement If Juniors Were Promoted Earlier: Himachal Pradesh HC

Background Facts

The respondent was working with the H.P. Housing & Urban Development Authority. He was promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade-II on 28.09.2010. During his service, two of his juniors were given promotion on 01.06.2012 and 18.08.2012 respectively. Later, their promotions were regularized on 09.06.2015 with effect from the dates of their promotions. However, the applicant's promotion was never regularized despite being senior. He retired from service on 30.04.2013. After retirement, in 2016, he approached the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by filing an Original Application. He sought regularization of his promotion and grant of consequential benefits.

The Tribunal allowed the application by order dated 10.08.2017. It directed the Authority to hold a Review DPC to consider the respondent's case for regular promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-II. It further directed that if he was found suitable, a supernumerary post should be created and he should be given all consequential benefits.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the tribunal's order.

It was submitted by the petitioner that the when the Tribunal passed the order on 10.08.2017, the respondent had already retired on 30.04.2013. Therefore, he was not entitled to any benefit of promotion post-retirement. It was further submitted that at the time when the Tribunal issued directions, there was no vacancy available in the cadre of Superintendent Grade-II, and hence the order of the Tribunal was incapable of implementation.

On the other hand, it was submitted by the respondent that the Tribunal had rightly directed consideration of his case for regular promotion as he was senior to the officials who had already been regularized. It was contended that juniors were given promotion in 2012 and later their promotions were regularized with retrospective effect in 2015, whereas the respondent was promoted in 2010, much before them. The respondent also pointed out that the petitioner-Authority itself, by communication dated 29.01.2016, recommended his case for regularization along with similarly situated persons.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the Court that once the juniors had been granted regularization with retrospective effect, there was no justification for denying the same benefit to the respondent, who was senior to them. It was further observed that the respondent retired on 30.04.2013, but he was in service when his juniors were regularized. Therefore, the argument of the petitioner that retirement disentitles the respondent from such benefit was held to be without merit. It was also noted that the petitioner-Authority itself had recommended the respondent's case for regularization in its communication dated 29.01.2016. it was held that the Authority cannot take contradictory stands and blow hot and cold at the same time.

It was held by the Court that retirement cannot be treated as a valid ground to deny the benefit of promotion when juniors have been given the same during the service period of the employee. It was held by the court that despite the Tribunal's order and no stay being granted by the Court, the Authority failed to comply with the directions for several years. It was directed by the Court that the petitioner-Authority shall implement the Tribunal's order and take necessary steps within a period of two months.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was dismissed.

Case Name : H.P. Housing & Urban Development Authority vs Roop Lal Verma & another

Case No. : CWP No. 167 of 2018

Counsel for the Petitioner : C.N. Singh, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents : P.S. Goverdhan, Senior Advocate with Rakesh Thakur, Advocate, Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General