Failure to convene a DPC after expiry of penalty unlawfully denies promotional consideration.

Respondent No. 1 was appointed as a Forest Guard on 2 September 1989 and promoted as Deputy Ranger on 15 July 2009. A departmental proceeding was initiated after certain revenue collected by him was not deposited in the Government treasury. A minor penalty of withholding one annual increment without cumulative effect was imposed on 12 November 2014, and his appeal against the penalty was dismissed.

When the Departmental Promotion Committee considered promotion to the post of Forest Ranger in 2015, Respondent No. 1 was not considered because the penalty was subsisting, although his juniors were promoted on 28 November 2015. He subsequently filed W.P. No. 6427 of 2017. Pursuant to the directions in that proceeding, the State rejected his claim by order dated 17 August 2022. Respondent No. 1 challenged that order in W.P. No. 27108 of 2022, which was allowed by the Single Judge on 26 October 2023. The State’s review petition was dismissed on 20 April 2026, leading to the present writ appeal.

The State also sought condonation of 824 days’ delay, attributing it to the process of obtaining legal opinions and completing departmental and procedural formalities.

Whether the State had shown sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the 824-day delay in filing the writ appeal?

Whether Respondent No. 1 was wrongly denied consideration for promotion after the expiry of the punishment of withholding one increment without cumulative effect?

Whether the Single Judge was justified in directing the State to convene a fresh DPC and consider Respondent No. 1 for promotion with consequential and notional benefits?

The Court applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, holding that “sufficient cause” is the primary consideration in an application for condonation of delay.

It also applied Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, under which the writ appeal was maintainable.

On the promotion issue, the Court applied the service-law principle that an employee undergoing a subsisting penalty may be excluded from promotion consideration during the currency of the penalty, but must be considered thereafter in accordance with the applicable service rules and relevant promotional parameters.

The Court also referred to Motilal Songara v. Prem Prakash alias Pappu, (2013) 9 SCC 199; Sheo Raj Singh v. Union of India, (2023) 10 SCC 531; and Vishnu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1501, in the context of condonation of delay.

The Court found the State’s explanation—obtaining legal opinion, processing the matter through the Law Department, and completing departmental formalities—sufficient in the circumstances, particularly in view of the nature of the dispute and the merits requiring consideration. It therefore condoned the delay of 824 days.

On merits, the Court accepted that Respondent No. 1 could not have been considered for promotion while the penalty imposed on 12 November 2014 remained operative. However, once the punishment had run its course, the State was under a duty to convene a DPC and reconsider his case. The State’s failure to do so was held arbitrary, and the Single Judge was found to have correctly directed reconsideration.

The Court clarified that the exercise would involve a fresh DPC assessment based on the applicable ACRs and other relevant parameters; promotion would follow only if Respondent No. 1 was found fit.

The writ appeal was heard finally, but the Court upheld the substance of the Single Judge’s decision requiring the State to convene a fresh DPC and objectively consider Respondent No. 1 for promotion to the post of Forest Ranger.

If found fit, Respondent No. 1 was to be granted promotion with consequential and notional benefits from the date of entitlement, subject to applicable rules and a reasoned order. Back wages were excluded on the principle of “no work, no pay”, and the entire exercise was directed to be completed within three months.