Retired employee’s promotion representation must be considered on its merits within eight weeks.

The petitioner, a retired District Revenue Officer, stated that he was appointed as an Assistant in 1974 and that his name was included in the panel for promotion to Deputy Tahsildar only in 1985, although some of his juniors had been promoted earlier.

He relied on a prior Supreme Court order dated 12 March 2019 and sought notional promotion with consequential monetary benefits on par with his immediate junior.

After retirement in 2010, he submitted a representation dated 3 August 2021, sent on 4 August 2021, to the first respondent; he complained that it had not been considered.

The State opposed the claim by referring to this Court’s rejection of a similar request by A. Subramanian, but submitted that the petitioner’s representation could be considered on its merits and in accordance with law.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to promotion as Deputy Tahsildar, with consequential monetary benefits on par with his immediate junior.

2. Whether the first respondent should be directed to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 3 August 2021, sent on 4 August 2021.

The petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus.

The Court applied no substantive rule governing promotion or service entitlement and relied on no precedent to decide the merits.

It expressly left the merits open and directed the first respondent to consider the representation on its own merits and in accordance with law.

The Court did not determine whether the petitioner was substantively entitled to promotion or monetary benefits.

In view of the State’s submission that the representation could be considered, the Court disposed of the petition without examining the merits and confined its order to requiring the first respondent to decide the representation in accordance with law.

The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.