Facts
The applicant, Surinder Singh Jasrotia, was appointed as Junior Assistant on 04.07.1987 and was promoted to Accountant-cum-Store Keeper in 1988.
Source reference: p.4He received his first time-bound promotion in 1998 under the J&K Civil Services Higher Standard Pay Scale Scheme (SRO 14 dated 15.01.1996).
Source reference: p.4, p.5He retired on 31.08.2022.
Source reference: p.5The applicant claims entitlement to a second in-situ promotion around 2006-2007, which was not granted despite recommendations and communications from departmental authorities starting in 2012.
Source reference: p.5, p.6Upon the applicant filing OA No. 1626/2023, the Tribunal, on 13.12.2023, directed respondents to consider his case.
Source reference: p.7, p.8Due to non-compliance, he filed Contempt Petition No. 46/2024, during which respondents issued Order No. 118 DH&HJ of 2024 dated 06.07.2024, granting him the second in-situ promotion notionally with effect from 01.03.2007.
Source reference: p.8, p.12The contempt proceedings were closed, allowing the applicant to challenge the order if aggrieved.
Source reference: p.8The applicant's grievance is the denial of monetary benefits arising from this notional promotion, arguing that similarly situated employees received full benefits and that the delay was due to administrative lapses.
Source reference: p.8, p.9, p.15, p.16Respondents argue that monetary benefits are not permissible under Circular No. 41-JK(GAD) of 2021 dated 06.10.2021.
Source reference: p.12Issues
Whether the applicant, having been granted the second in-situ promotion notionally from the due date, can be denied the consequential monetary benefits?
Source reference: p.18Whether the delay in processing the applicant's promotion case, attributed to administrative lapses, justifies the denial of monetary benefits?
Source reference: p.15, p.16Whether Circular No. 41-JK(GAD) of 2021 can override statutory provisions and legitimate entitlements to deny monetary benefits?
Source reference: p.12, p.25Law Applied
The court primarily applied the principles derived from the J&K Civil Services Higher Standard Pay Scale Scheme (SRO 14 dated 15.01.1996), which provides for in-situ promotions.
Source reference: p.5, p.18, p.19, p.22The Tribunal relied on the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs K.V. Jankiraman (1991) 4 SCC 109, which held that an employee entitled to promotion cannot be denied consequential benefits except in exceptional circumstances.
Source reference: p.22It also cited State of Kerala vs E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai (2007) 6 SCC 524, affirming that an employee deprived of promotion due to no fault of their own is entitled to all consequential benefits.
Source reference: p.23Furthermore, the principle that an employee should not suffer due to administrative lapses was emphasized, citing Shiv Kumar Sharma vs Haryana State Electricity Board (1988 Supp SCC 669).
Source reference: p.23Reasoning
The Tribunal noted that the respondents admitted the applicant's entitlement to the second in-situ promotion from 01.03.2007 by granting it notionally.
Source reference: p.19, p.22Following the precedent in K.V. Jankiraman and E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai, the court determined that once entitlement is established, consequential benefits typically follow unless explicitly prohibited by law.
Source reference: p.22, p.23The respondents’ explanation of delay in processing the case (due to the applicant submitting his claim in 2012 for a 2007 entitlement) was found insufficient to deny financial benefits, as processing service benefits is the employer's responsibility, and an employee should not be penalized for administrative delays, as held in Shiv Kumar Sharma.
Source reference: p.11, p.12, p.21, p.23, p.24The Tribunal also observed that executive instructions, such as Circular No. 41-JK(GAD) of 2021, cannot override statutory provisions or legitimate entitlements under applicable rules.
Source reference: p.24, p.25Therefore, the denial of monetary benefits after acknowledging the promotion from the due date was deemed unjustified.
Source reference: p.23, p.25Holding
The Original Application was allowed.
The Tribunal set aside Order No. 118 DH&HJ of 2024 dated 06.07.2024 to the extent it denied monetary benefits of the second in-situ promotion to the applicant.
Source reference: p.25The respondents were directed to grant the applicant all consequential monetary benefits of the second in-situ promotion with effect from 01.03.2007 and to calculate and release the arrears within three months of the order's receipt.
Source reference: p.25, p.26The arrears are also to be considered for refixation of pension and other retiral benefits.
Source reference: p.26No costs were awarded.
Source reference: p.29Original Court PDF
Surinder Singh Jasrotia v. UT of J&K Through Principal Secretary to Government, Industries Department, J&K Government, Civil Secretariat, Jammu/Srinagar Pin code-180001, Director Handloom Development Department Jammu Pin code-180001 O.A. No. 1133/2024
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in