Acquittal warrants retrospective promotion parity despite a later general promotion ban.

The petitioner, an Executive Engineer whose name stood above that of Sri Ram Keshwar Ram in the relevant gradation list, sought promotion to Superintending Engineer with effect from 8 November 1988, the date from which his junior was promoted.

His promotion case was kept in a sealed cover because a vigilance case was pending against him; he was acquitted on 23 February 2019.

He subsequently sought consideration of his promotion through representations, but the State relied on a general ban on promotions to explain why his case had not been considered after his acquittal.

The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking promotion from 8 November 1988 and consequential benefits.

Whether, after the petitioner’s acquittal in the vigilance case, he was entitled to promotion as Superintending Engineer from 8 November 1988, on parity with his junior.

Whether the State’s general ban on promotions prevented the petitioner from receiving that promotion and its consequential benefits.

The Court applied the principles of parity in promotion and the sealed-cover procedure in the circumstances before it: where promotion was withheld solely because a vigilance case was pending, and the employee was subsequently acquitted, that pending case could no longer serve as the basis for denying the promotion claimed on parity with a promoted junior.

The Court further held that a later general ban on promotions did not bar relief where the claimed entitlement arose earlier. No statute or judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court found that the petitioner’s promotion had not been considered because of the pending vigilance case, and that he had since been acquitted.

It also noted that his junior had been promoted from 8 November 1988 and concluded that parity required the petitioner to receive equivalent promotion benefits.

The general promotion ban did not alter that conclusion because, in the Court’s view, the petitioner’s entitlement predated the issue underlying the ban.

As the petitioner had retired, the promotion was to be notional, but he was held entitled to monetary benefits.