An employee cannot claim retrospective promotion or notional benefits after retirement without assuming promotional duties.

Shri Ram Singh Meena, the original applicant, sought promotion to the post of Senior Stock Verifier from the date on which his juniors were promoted.

During his service, Criminal Case No. 6618/2002 was registered against him. He was convicted on 01.05.2015 but acquitted in appeal on 18.12.2015.

He submitted representations on 04.01.2016 and 23.03.2017 seeking consideration for promotion, but no relief was granted.

During the pendency of the application, he superannuated on 31.07.2017 and died on 11.07.2021. His widow, Bhori Devi, was substituted as his legal representative on 11.10.2021.

The respondents contended, and the Tribunal found, that his promotion had never been kept in sealed cover and that he had not been granted promotion before retirement.

1. Whether the original applicant could be granted promotion to the post of Senior Stock Verifier, or consequential notional/financial benefits, after his superannuation and subsequent death?

2. Whether the principle in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman applied where no sealed-cover procedure had been adopted in respect of the applicant’s promotion?

3. Whether the applicant’s right to be considered for promotion could result in an enforceable right to retrospective promotion after he could no longer assume duties on the promotional post?

The Tribunal applied the principle in Government of West Bengal v. Dr. Amal Satpathi, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3512, that promotion becomes effective only when granted and the employee assumes duties on the promotional post; an employee has a right to be considered for promotion but no absolute right to promotion or retrospective financial benefits after retirement.

It also relied on Bihar State Electricity Board v. Dharamdeo Das, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1768, and Ajay Kumar Shukla v. Arvind Rai, (2022) 12 SCC 579, for the distinction between the right to consideration for promotion and a right to promotion itself.

The Tribunal further referred to State of Bihar v. Akhouri Sachindra Nath, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 334, and Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 272, which restrict retrospective seniority or promotion where the employee was not borne in the promotional cadre.

The principle in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, 1991 (3) SCR 790, concerning promotion after exoneration under the sealed-cover procedure, was held distinguishable because no sealed-cover procedure had been adopted in the present case.

The Tribunal held that the applicant’s case did not fall within the Jankiraman doctrine because there was no evidence that a DPC had assessed him, found him otherwise suitable, and kept his promotion recommendation in a sealed cover during the criminal proceedings.

Further, his claim required initial determination of eligibility and alteration of a seniority position dating back to 2005, which had not previously been challenged.

Applying Dr. Amal Satpathi, the Tribunal reasoned that promotion must be effectuated through assumption of duties on the promotional post.

Since the applicant had retired before receiving promotion and had subsequently died, he could not join or discharge duties in the promoted post.

Consequently, neither retrospective promotion nor notional financial benefits could be granted.

The application was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.