UNION OF INDIA & ANR. versus MANPREET SINGH POONAM ETC.

Citation: [2022] 2 S.C.R. 764 · Decided: 08-03-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
764
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 764
764
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
v.
MANPREET SINGH POONAM ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 517-518 of 2017)
MARCH 08, 2022
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
National Capital Territory of Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar
Islands, Lakshdweep, Daman and Diu and Dadra and Nagar Haveli
(Civil Service) Rules, 2003 – r. 4, 7 – Claim by respondent-retired
seeking benefit of pay-upgradation – Held: It is a trite law that
once an officer retires voluntarily there is cessation of jural relation
between the employer and the employee and such an employee
cannot seek to agitate his past, as well as, future rights, if any, sans
the prescription of rules – Service Law.
National Capital Territory of Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar
Islands, Lakshdweep, Daman and Diu and Dadra and Nagar Haveli
(Civil Service) Rules, 2003 – r. 4, 7 – Claim by respondent-in-service
seeking the effect of promotion so granted from retrospective effect
– Held: A mere existence of the vacancy per se will not create a
right in favour of an employee for retrospective promotion when
the vacancies in the promotional post is specifically prescribed under
the rules – Since the respondent-in-service was given promotion
after successful consideration by the department promotion
committee, appellant rightly fixed the promotion with the year of
actual vacancy, as per rules – Service Law.
Service Law: Promotion – Differentiating applicability of two
set of Rules – A right of promotion and subsequent benefits and
seniority would arise only with respect to the rules governing the
said promotion and not a different set of rules which might apply to
a promoted post facilitating further promotion which is governed
by different set of rules.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Differential pay scale along with a process of
selection qua suitability fixing eligibility criteria are the factors
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
765
to determine whether a particular post is the same as the other
or a promotional one. Such an exercise is not required since the
rules themselves are specific. When the rules are specific and
clear, there is no need for interpretation which may lead to a case
of judicial legislation. Submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant that the reasoning of the CAT, though not challenged
is unsustainable, since there is no occasion to challenge it with
the dismissal of the applications filed also holds good. [Para
13][771-G-H; 772-A-B]
2. It is trite law that once an officer retires voluntarily, there
is cessation of jural relationship resorting to a “golden
handshake” between the employer and employee. Such a former
employee cannot seek to agitate his past, as well as future rights,
if any, sans the prescription of rules. This would include the
enhanced pay scale. The Respondent in Civil Appeal No.517 of
2017 was rightly not considered in the DPC in 2012 since he was
no longer in service at the relevant point of time. The High Court
has committed an error in relying upon a circular, which has got
no application at all, particularly in the light of the finding that the
court is dealing with a case of promotion simpliciter as against
up- gradation of any nature. [Para 16][774-C-D]
3. On facts, there is no dispute that Respondent in Civil
Appeal No.518 of 2017 was given promotion after the successful
consideration by the DPC. On such clearance the appellant has
rightly fixed the promotion with the year of actual vacancy, as per
rules. Thus, the Respondent neither on facts nor on law can claim
retrospective promotion, and that too from the year 2009 being
the year in which he was placed in the select list against a notional
vacancy, especially when the then existing vacancy accrued only
in the year 2011, when the JAG-I officers were actually inducted
into IAS, against which he was promoted. As such, the promotion
cannot be granted retrospectively and extended to give benefit
and seniority from the date of notional vacancy, causing violence
to Rule 4 and 7 of the 2003 Rules. A mere existence of vacancy
per se will not create a right in favour of an employee for
retrospective promotion when the vacancies in the promotional
post is specifically prescribed under the rules, which also mandate
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. MANPREET SINGH POONAM ETC.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
766
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
the clearance through a selection process. When dealing with a
case of promotion, there can never be a parity be

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.