Kerala High Court Warns State Of 'Adverse Consequences' For Bureaucratic Indecision Affecting Promotion Entitlements Of Govt Servants

In the facts of the case, a professor who has been entitled to promotion since 2003 was brought to the Court in an appeal preferred by the State against the order of Kerala Administrative Tribunal upholding his right to promotion since 2003.

The Division Bench of Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. M. Manoj upheld the order of the Tribunal which found that he was entitled for promotion since 2003, since there was a vacancy of the Professor even prior to 2003 and that his name was on the select list published in 2002.

“If the Government or any other department is lethargic in considering the legitimate claim of a Government servant, that must face adverse consequences carrying restitutional benefits. This monetary benefit was a legitimate claim that was denied arbitrarily on account of bureaucratic delay.”

The respondent in this case is a Professor in Electronics and Communication Engineering, whose promotion was due to take effect in 2003, but was only granted notional promotion in 2009.

The Tribunal ruled in his favour, affirming his entitlement to the promotion from 2003 as there was a vacancy. The State has now appealed against this decision.

The State argued that as per Rule 23(c) of Part I Kerala Service Rules, no arrears of back pay and allowances are admissible in the matter of notional promotion.

In the facts of the case, the Court considered the impact of arbitrary denial of promotion due to government servants. It stated that government servants cannot be denied constitutional protection against arbitrariness.

Court added, “The essence of the case points to a common issue in public employment, where bureaucratic red tape often delays rightful advancements, impacting individuals' careers and causing unnecessary legal battles. The professor's plight underscores the adverse effect of such administrative delays on educational professionals, diverting time and energy that could otherwise contribute to academic and professional advancement.”

The Court took note of the fact that even though the Tribunal passed an order in 2023, the original petition was filed by the State challenging it after almost a year, in 2024. The Court stated that the State must have a 'definitive and timely litigation policy' to avoid unnecessary delays.

Court stated, “These extensive delays highlight the burdens faced by individuals when litigating against the State, which often leads to prolonged career and financial uncertainty. The absence of a streamlined litigation policy within the State apparatus not only places undue strain on individual litigants but also leads to judicial waste of time, forcing both the Court and the Tribunal to expend valuable time awaiting the State's eventual decision. This underscores the critical need for the State to adopt a more definitive and timely litigation policy to avoid unnecessary delays, financial liabilities, and the unwarranted drain of judicial time.”

The Court stated that the Tribunal found that the respondent was denied his promotion without any reason in 2003. It also took note of the fact that the respondent was in the select list published in 2002 and that promotions were granted in other departments. The Court thus upheld the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the original petition.

Counsel for Petitioners: Senior Government Pleader Nisha Bose

Counsel for Respondent: Advocate A Aruna

Case Number: OP(KAT) NO. 320 OF 2024

Case Title: State of Kerala v Jayakrishnaraj G

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 743

Click here to Read/Download Order