STATE OF UTTARAKHAND vs MAHENDRA KUMAR YADAV

UKHC010043792018

2026:UHC:9972-DB
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
SL.
Date
No.
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

SPA/57/2018
State Of Uttarakhand and another
--Appellants

Versus
Mahendra Kumar Yadav
--Respondent
Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, A.C.J.
Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.
Mr. Sachin Mohan Singh Mehta, Standing Counsel
for the appellants.
No representation for the respondent.

2. This Intra-Court appeal is directed against the final
order dated 29.03.2017 passed by learned Single Judge
in Writ Petition (SS) No. 1176 of 2010. By the said
order, the authorities were directed to consider case of
the writ petitioner for promotion to the post of Tax and
Revenue Superintendent against vacancies which were
available between 2004-2009 and also to give him
promotion with consequential benefits, if he is found
suitable for promotion. The impugned order is
reproduced below for ready reference:
“The petitioner was discharging the duties of Tax
Inspector. According to the averments made in the petition, the
petitioner was found eligible and qualified for promotion in the
year 1999. However, as per promotion order dated 23.06.2009, to
the post of Tax and Revenue Superintendent. The petitioner has
no fundamental right to be promoted, but definitely he has a right
to be considered for promotion.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the
posts were lying vacant between the years 2004-09.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents
are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion
to the post of Tax and Revenue Superintendent against the
vacancies, which were available between 2004-2009 and if found
suitable for promotion, be promoted and granted all

UKHC010043792018

2026:UHC:9972-DB
consequential benefits.”

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
writ petitioner (respondent herein) was appointed as Tax
and Revenue Inspector in erstwhile State of Uttar
Pradesh on the recommendation of U.P. Public Service
Commission on 20.03.1999; upon creation of separate
State, he was relieved from State of U.P. and joined in
State of Uttarakhand on 29.11.2004; in the year 2001,
certain persons were promoted from the post of Tax and
Revenue Inspector to the next higher post of Tax and
Revenue Superintendent, therefore petitioner in his writ
petition claimed promotion as Tax and Revenue
Superintendent w.e.f 2001.
4. Learned State Counsel submits that since the
persons who were promoted in 2001 and in subsequent
years were all senior to respondent, therefore the
direction to promote respondent against the vacancies
which were available between 2004-2009 is
unsustainable.
5. State Counsel further submits that a mandamus has

been issued by learned Single Judge to promote the
petitioner with retrospective effect, if he is found
suitable for promotion, which is creating difficulties for
the authorities.
6. Learned State Counsel has drawn our attention to
para 5 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State
Government before the writ Court. Para 5 of the said

UKHC010043792018

2026:UHC:9972-DB
counter affidavit is reproduced below:
“5. That in reply to the contends of paragraph nos. 19

to 34 of the writ petition, the submissions made in brief
history of this affidavit are reiterated. As submitted earlier,
the petitioner joined the services as Tax & Revenue
st
Inspector in the pay scale of Rs. 3200-4900 on 1 April
1999. The contention of the petitioner that he was entitled
st
for the promotion w.e.f. 1 August 2001 is, as such,
misconceived. Thus, the petitioner cannot be granted
promotion from the back date. It is relevant to submit here
that no person junior to the petitioner was promoted prior to
the petitioner.”
7. Although, rejoinder affidavit was filed by the
respondent; however, statement made in the counter
affidavit that no person junior to the petitioner was
promoted has not been denied.
8. Promotion with retrospective effect can be claimed
only when a person junior to the respondent was
promoted earlier by invoking next below rule. Since that
is not the case here, therefore direction issued by learned
Single Judge to promote the petitioner against a vacancy
of the year 2004-09, if he is otherwise found suitable is
interfereble.
9. We, accordingly, modify the order dated
29.03.2017 by providing that the authorities shall
examine the claim of the respondent and he shall be
entitled to promotion from a deemed date. only if
someone junior to him was promoted earlier.








(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, A.C.J.)
31.10.2026


Mahinder/
MAHINDER SINGH

Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH
Date: 2026.11.04 17:53:26 +05'30'

UKHC010043792018

2026:UHC:9972-DB