Supreme Court of India
NIRMAL CHANDRA SINHAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 423
- Decided
- 31 March 2008
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- H K SEMA
Holding
A promotion is effective from the date it is granted and must comply with the service rule of two years actual service in the lower post; backdated notional promotion is not permissible.
Summary
Nirmal Chandra Sinha, a senior officer of the Indian Railway Service of Mechanical Engineers, was promoted to General Manager on 29 November 1996. He sought a notional promotion effective from 13 March 1996, claiming seniority and related benefits. The Central Administrative Tribunal rejected his claim, and the Andhra Pradesh High Court partially allowed it, granting backdated promotion but denying seniority over certain respondents. Both Sinha and the Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court held that a promotion takes effect from the date it is formally granted, not from the vacancy date, and that the service rule requiring two years of actual service in the lower post must be strictly complied with. Consequently, Sinha’s request for backdated promotion was denied, his appeal was dismissed, and the Union’s appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a promotion takes effect from the date of vacancy or the date it is granted.
- Whether the rule requiring two years of actual service in the lower post can be ignored for promotion.
- Whether a notional promotion can be backdated to confer seniority and benefits.
Subjects
promotionseniorityservice rulesnotional promotionbackdatingIndian Railwaysservice lawtwo-year rule
Judgment
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 635
""1 NIRMAL CHANDRA SINHA A
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 8058 of 2001)
MARCH 31, 2008
B
(H.K. SEMA AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.)
Service Law:
Promotion and seniority - Grant of - Held: Promotion
taken effect from the date of being granted and not from the c
date of occurrence of vacancy thereof - In the present case,
in terms of the Rules, two years regular service in the lower
post required before consideration for promotion - Rules
cannot be violated - Hence, High Court erred in allowing
notional promotion to the incumbent as he had not put in D
requisite service of two years in the lower post.
~-
Appellant was promoted to the post of General
Manager in the Indian Railways on 29.11.1996. His claim
for notional. promotion w.e.f.13.3.1996 with consequential
~ benefits including seniority was rejected by the authorities. E
He filed an Original Application before the Central
Administrative Tribunal, which was rejected by the
~
Tribunal. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition
which was partly allowed by the High Court granting him
notional promotion to the post of General Manager w.e.f. F
13.7.96 but rejected his prayer for granting him seniority
above respondent Nos. 3 & 4. Hence the present appeals
were filed, both by the appellant as well as the Union of
India.
G
Allowing the appeal filed by the Union of India and
dismissing the appeal filed by the employee, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It has been held in a series of decisions of
} this Court that a promotion takes effect from the date of
635 H
636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R. -
A being granted and not from the date of occurrence of
-
vacancy or creation of the post. (Para - 7) [638-8]
Union of India and others vs. K.K. Vadera and Others
1989 Supp (2) SCC 625; State of Uttaranchal and Another
B vs. Dinesh Kumar Sharma 2007 (1) SCC 683; K. V Subba
Rao vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh 1988(2) SCC 201
and Sanjay K. Sinha & others vs. State of Bihar and others
2004 (1 O) sec 734 etc.- relied on.
1.2 When the rule requires two years' actual service
c in the lower post before a person can be considered for
promotion as General Manager, that rule cannot be
violated by considering a person who has not put in two
years' service in the lower post. (Para - 9) [638-F-G]
Union of India vs. B. S. Agarwal and another 1997 (8) SCC
D 89 - distinguished.
2. In the present case, the appellant was promoted
as General Manager on 29.11.1996, but he claimed that he
should be deemed to have been promoted w.e.f.13.3.1996
E with consequential benefits. This relief cannot be granted
to him. It is settled law that the date of occurrence of
vacancy is not relevant for the purpose of promotion.
(Para - 10) [639-8]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
F 8058 of 2001.
From the final Judgment and Judgment dated 14112/1999 ,. ,
of the High of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P.
No. 25555/1998.
WITH
G
Civil Appeal No. 8059/2001.
Siddharth Dave, Arvind Varma, Jamtiben AO and Sumita
Ray for the Appellant.
H Dr. R.G. Padia, Shalini Kumari and Anil Katiyar for the
NIRMAL CHANDRA SINHA v. UNION OF !NOIA & ORS. 637
[MARKANDEY KAT JU, J.]
~ Respondents. A
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
'' MARKANDEY KAT JU, J. 1. These two connected
" 'Opeals have been filed against the impugned judgment ofthe
,,ndhra Pradesh High Court dated 14.12.1999 in Writ Petition B
+ No. 25555 of 1998.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
3. Appellant Nirmal Chandra Sinha belongs to the Indian c
Railway Service of Mechanical Engineers (IRSME) having been
appointed on 2.5.1958. When his turn came for consideration
for promotion as General Manager, he was working as Chief
Mechanical Engineer of Southern Eastern Railway. He was
promoted to the post of General Manager on 29.11.1996. He
'( D
i,
claimed notional promotion w.e.f. 13.3.1996 with consequential
-t benefits. His O.A. was rejected by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, but against that order he filed a writ petition which was
partially allowed by the High Court.
4. Against the aforesaid judgment of the High Court E
~ appeals were filed both by appellant Nirmal Chandra Sinha as
well as the Union of India.
5. In the appeal filed by appellant Nirmal Chandra Sinha,
the ground taken was that the High Court partially allowed the
writ petition by giving him notional promotion as General F
~
Manager w.e.f. 13.3.1996 with consequential benefits, but the
High Court has wrongly rejected his prayer that he should be
senior to the contesting private respondent Nos. 3 & 4. On the
other hand, in the appeal filed by the Union of India it was alleged
that the High Court wrongly directed that appellant Nirmal G
Chandra Sinha should be notionally promoted as General
Manager w.e.f. 13.3.1996 with consequential benefits.
+ 6. We are of the opinion that the appeal of appellant Nirmal
Chandra Sinha being Civil Appeal No. 8058 of 2001 deserves
H
l
638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R
A to be dismissed while the appeal filed by the Union of India ~
being Civil Appeal No. 8059/2001 deserves to be allowed.
7. It has been held in a series of decisions of this Court
that a promotion takes effect from the date of being granted
and not from the date of occurrence of vacancy or creation of
B the post vide Union of India and others vs. K.K. Vadera and
others 1989 Supp (2) SCC 625, State of Uttaranchal and
another vs. Dinesh Kumar Sharma 2007 (1) SCC 683, K. V.
Subba Rao vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh 1988(2)
SCC 201, Sanjay K. Sinha & others vs. State of 8ihar and
c others 2004 (10) sec 734 etc.
8. Learned counsel for appellant Nirmal Chandra Sinha,
however, relied on a decision of this Court in Union of India
vs. 8.S. Agarwal and another 1997 (8) SCC 89. We have
carefully perused the decision and we are of the opinion that
D
the said decision is distinguishable. In that case the facts were
that, under the relevant rule for promotion as General Manager
i
it was necessary to have at least two years' tenure on the lower
post. The respondent did not actually have two years' tenure,
yet this Court held that he was eligible for promotion since he
E had been empanelled and the vacancy on which he should be
promoted had occurred before two years of his consideration
for promotion.
9. In our opinion, the aforesaid decision in Union of India
F vs. 8.S. Agarwal (supra) was given on the special circumstances
of that case and on humanitarian considerations, but it cannot
be said to be a precedent for other cases. When the rule ...
requires two years' actual service in the lower post before a
person can be considered for promotion as General Manager,
that rule cannot be violated by considering a person who has
G
not put in two years' service in the lower post. Moreover, in the
aforesaid decision in Union of India vs. 8.S. Agarwal (supra},
the respondent had not actually been promoted as General
Manager, but he only claimed that he was eligible to be -f
considered for promotion as General Manager. This fact also
H
'
'
NIRMAL CHANDRA SINHA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 639
[MARKANDEY KAT JU, J.]
makes the aforesaid decision distinguishable. A
10. In the present case, appe:Jant Nirmal Chandra Sinha
was promoted as General Manager on 29.11.1996, but he
claims that he should be deemed to have been promoted w.e.f.
) 13.3.1996 with consequential benefits. We are afraid this relief
cannot be granted to him. It is settled law that the date of 8
occurrence of vacancy is not relevant for this purpose.
11. For the reasons given above, the impugned judgment
is set aside. Civil Appeal No. 8058 of 2001 is dismissed and
Civil Appeal No. 8059 of 2001 stands allowed. There shall be c
no order as to costs.
S.K.S. Civil Appeal No. 8058 of 2001 dismissed
and Civil Appeal No. 8059 of 2001 allowed.
-"-.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "promotion"Sign in to search