Administrative delay in approving a promotion cannot be used to deny consequential benefits after an employee's retirement.

The respondent, Indrani Chakrabarti, was promoted to the post of Principal at Abhoya Sundari Girls’ High School (a linguistic minority institution) by a Promotion Committee on 31.07.2017

On 17.01.2018, the school applied to the State Educational Authorities for approval of the promotion

Despite multiple reminders, the authorities took no action while the respondent continued to serve as Principal until her superannuation on 31.12.2019

Nearly three years after her retirement, on 07.11.2022, the appellants rejected the approval request solely on the ground that she had already retired

The respondent challenged this via W.P.(S) No. 4533 of 2023, which a learned Single Judge allowed on 23.01.2024, directing notional promotion and consequential benefits

1. Whether the State can refuse to grant approval for a promotion in a minority institution solely on the ground of the employee's retirement, when the application for approval was submitted well within the service period

2. Whether the appellants are entitled to benefit from their own administrative delay in processing a promotion approval

The Court applied the principle of equity and administrative law that a party cannot take advantage of its own wrong or delay

While the State has powers of oversight regarding Minority Educational Institutions, it cannot arbitrarily withhold approval for a promotion that is otherwise legally valid and fulfills essential qualifications

The judgment also implicitly relied on the doctrine of substantial justice, ensuring that an employee who has actually discharged the duties of a higher post is not deprived of benefits due to clerical or administrative inertia

The Court found that the rejection order dated 07.11.2022 was "cryptic and vitiated by non-application of mind" because the respondent's retirement was irrelevant to the merit of the promotion proposal sent years earlier

The Bench noted that the respondent had actually performed the duties of Principal from 2017 to 2019

Crucially, the State did not allege any breach of seniority, lack of educational qualifications, or violation of statutory rules; the only ground for rejection was the timing of the decision

The Court reasoned that since the proposal was sent while the respondent was in service, the authorities had an obligation to consider it on its merits rather than allowing it to lapse through their own inaction

The High Court dismissed the appeal and directed the appellants to pay all consequential benefits to the respondent within two months, or deposit the amount with the Court Registry for direct transfer to the respondent's account; no costs were awarded