Case Title: MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ANR v. SHRI JAGMINDER SINGH & ANR.
Case No.: W.P.(C) 4605/2024
Dated on: MARCH 28, 2024
Coram: REKHA PALLI J., RAVINDER DUDEJA J.
Facts:
In this case, the Ministry of Home Affairs challenged an order from the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal had directed the Ministry to consider promoting two retired employees, Jagminder Singh and another person, to a higher administrative grade. The promotion should be considered from the date they were eligible, even though they had already retired. The Tribunal stated that if they were eligible, they should receive the promotion on paper, with all related benefits, but not an actual promotion since they were no longer in service. The Ministry argued that the employees, having retired before the promotion committee meeting, should not be considered for promotion. They cited a guideline that says consideration of retired employees for promotion is not a right. However, the Tribunal and the High Court emphasized that if the promotion was due while the employees were still in service, they should be considered, despite the delay in holding the promotion meeting. The Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision, dismissing the Ministry’s petition and granting them six weeks to comply with the order.
Issues framed by Court:
- Whether the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 12.10.1998 grants a vested right to superannuated employees to be considered for promotion.
- Whether the respondents, who had superannuated before the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting, should still be considered for promotion to the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) for the period when they were in service.
- Whether the delay in holding the DPC meetings, which led to the respondents’ non-consideration for promotion while in service, impacts their right to be considered for promotion post-retirement.
- Whether the employer’s delay in convening the DPC should result in the respondents being deprived of their right to be considered for promotion that was due while they were still in service.
- Whether it is within the employer’s discretion to consider or not consider superannuated employees for promotion based on the OM and the guidelines from the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT).
Legal Provisions:
Article 226 of the Constitution of India: Power of High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of rights under Part III of the Constitution and other purposes.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Ministry of Home Affairs argued that the Tribunal’s order was incorrect because it failed to recognize that the guidelines (Office Memorandum dated 12.10.1998) as it does not guarantee retired employees the right to be considered for promotion. They contended that since the respondents had already retired before the promotion committee met, they were rightly not considered for the promotion. The Ministry emphasized that the guidelines only allow for the possibility of considering retired employees, but do not make it an obligation. They also pointed out that the respondents had not challenged the guidelines themselves. Therefore, they believed the Tribunal was wrong to direct them to consider the respondents for promotion for the year 2013 when they were already retired by the time the promotion committee convened in 2016.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondents, Jagminder Singh and another retired employee, argued that they should have been considered for promotion to a higher administrative grade (SAG) when they were still in service. They pointed out that the Ministry’s delay in holding the promotion committee meeting caused them to miss out on this promotion. According to them, an Office Memorandum (OM) from 12.10.1998 supports their case, stating that employees who were eligible for promotion while in service should still be considered even if they retired before the promotion meeting took place. They believed that they were unjustly excluded from promotion, even though they met all the requirements during their service period. They cited a previous similar case where the court had ordered promotions on a notional basis for retired employees. Based on this, they asked the court to uphold the Tribunal’s order and grant them the promotion with all related benefits, at least on paper.
Court’s Analysis & Judgement:
The Hon’ble HC analyzed the situation by looking at the guidelines and the facts of the case. It found that the rules require considering eligible employees for promotion even if they have retired by the time the promotion meeting happens. The delay in holding the promotion meeting should not prevent these employees from being considered if they were eligible while still in service. The court noted that not considering them would be unfair and arbitrary. The court also referenced a similar previous case where the same principle was applied. Ultimately, the High Court agreed with the Tribunal’s decision that the retired employees should be considered for promotion on paper, with all related benefits, but not an actual promotion since they are no longer working. The court dismissed the Ministry’s petition and gave them six weeks to follow the order.a
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed By- Shramana Sengupta
