Supreme Court Affirms HC Direction To Grant Two Higher Scales To Govt Official In Post Without Promotional Avenues

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (February 6) dismisses the plea of the Himachal Pradesh Government challenging the grant of two promotions to an employee in the next higher scale of pay upon his completing 12 years and 24 years in service.

The Bench Comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra, affirmed the decision of the High Court directing the State to provide two promotions to an employee in the absence of any promotion avenues for the post.

The High Court's decision was based on the case of the State of Tripura and others versus K.K. Roy, where the Supreme Court held that if there are no promotional avenues for the post, then the concerned State Government should formulate a policy, based on the recommendations of the Pay Commission, for granting at least two higher scales to an employee.

“It has been held that promotion being a condition of service, the State is under obligation to provide promotional avenues. Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that the employee concerned be granted two promotions in the next higher scale of pay upon his completing 12 years and 24 years in service.” High Court noted while relying on the K.K. Roy case.

The gist of the dispute was that the employee was appointed to the post of Computer Operator in the Health Service Department of the Himachal Pradesh Government, but he was being deployed to do the work of clerk. His case is that other Clerks working in the said office have been getting promotions as Assistants, Senior Assistants, Deputy Superintendents, etc., but not him. According to him, he is also performing the duties of a Clerk, and he should also get the same promotions.

The State denied the promotion to the employee on the note that he was appointed as a Computer Operator, which is a post different from the posts included in the cadre of Clerks and posts of Computer Operators being not included in any feeder cadre for promotion to higher post, he has remained Computer Operator since his appointment.

Assailing the decision of the State, the employee preferred the Writ Petition before the High Court which came to be allowed. While relying on the K.K. Roy case, the High Court held as follows

“Relying upon the aforesaid precedent of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to grant two higher scales to the petitioner, in the hierarchy of pay-scales, one on completion of 12 years' service and the other when he completed 24 years of service. Petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential monetary benefits.”

The Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the decision of the Single Bench.

“..admittedly the respondent worked on one post only i.e. Computer Operator from 1981 to 2010, till his superannuation, and no reason has come forth why he was no promoted even once in his whole service career, if there were promotional posts available, as canvassed by the appellants. There are also no averments whether respondent was ever offered promotion, which was either denied by him or for which he was found not eligible. Thus, the fact remains that the respondent has remained on one post for around 28 years, which definitely amounts to stagnation.” The Division Bench of the High Court observed.

It is against the impugned order of the Division Bench, that the State preferred a Special Leave Petition (Civil) before the Supreme Court.

At the outset, when the matter was called on hearing, the court showed its reluctance to entertain the S.L.P., and after perusing the impugned order the Court noted as follows:

“The Judgment by the Single Judge and also by the Division Bench challenge before us are read and we have weighed the reasoning given by High Court. The respondent was deprived of benefit of promotion even once in whole his service career and the High Court noted that the employer never offered any promotion to the respondent or that he is found ineligible for the promotion.”

Finding no merit in this SLP, the same is accordingly dismissed by the Court.

Case Details:

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. SURENDER KUMAR PARMAR, SLP(C) No. 018286 / 2018

Click here to read/download the judgment