The Supreme Court in the case State Of Himachal Pradesh vs. Surender Kumar Parmar observed and has dismissed the petition filed by 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 of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra in the case observed and has 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.
Therefore, the decision of the High Court was based on the case of the State of Tripura and others versus K.K. Roy, wherein the Supreme Court held that if there are no promotional avenues for the post, then the concerned State Government should formulate a policy which is based on the recommendations of the Pay Commission, for granting at least two higher scales to an employee.
The High Court also relied on the K.K. Roy case, wherein the court held that promotion being a condition of service, the State is under obligation to provide promotional avenues. It has been directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court 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.
However, the gist of the dispute was that the employee was being 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. Thus, the case of him was that the other Clerks working in the said office have been getting promotions as Assistants, Senior Assistants, the Deputy Superintendents, etc., but not him and according to him, he is also performing the duties of a Clerk, and he should also get the same promotions. The State in the case observed and has denied the promotion to the employee on the note that he was being 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.
Therefore, the employee preferred the Writ Petition before the High Court which came to be allowed, while assailing the decision of the State.
The High Court relied in the K.K. Roy case held as follows:
The court while relying upon the aforesaid precedent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the court disposed of the plea 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 has completed 24 years of service. Thus, the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential monetary benefits.
The Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the decision of the Single Bench.
The Division Bench of the High Court in the case observed that admittedly the respondent worked on one post only i.e. Computer Operator from the year 1981 to 2010, till his superannuation, and no such 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. Thus, 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 and that the fact remains that the respondent has remained on one post for around 28 years, which definitely amounts to stagnation.
Further, the State preferred a Special Leave Petition (Civil) before the Supreme Court, it is against the impugned order of the Division Bench.
The court showed its reluctance to entertain the S.L.P., and after perusing the impugned order the Court noted that the judgement by the Single Judge and also by the Division Bench challenge before us are read and this court have weighed the reasoning given by High Court. Thus, 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.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances observed and has dismissed the plea, as the said court finds no merit in this SLP.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the plea.
