Facts
The petitioner, a Commercial Tax Officer, retired on superannuation on 31 December 2018.
Source reference: p. 1–3Before his retirement, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes had forwarded a proposal identifying him as eligible for ad hoc promotion to Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes).
Source reference: p. 1–3The petitioner sought notional promotion, with consequential pension and other monetary benefits, relying on G.O. (Ms.) No. 149 dated 5 October 2020.
Source reference: p. 1–3He had also been a petitioner in W.P.(MD) No. 22360 of 2015, which was dismissed on the same day
Source reference: p. 1–3Issues
Whether the petitioner was entitled to notional promotion as Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), with consequential pension and monetary benefits, based on the promotion proposal forwarded before his retirement
Source reference: p. 2–4Whether the proposal created an entitlement to promotion notwithstanding that the petitioner retired without serving in the promotional post
Source reference: p. 3–4, 10Law Applied
The Court applied the principle that an employee has a right to be considered for promotion under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution, but no fundamental right to promotion itself; promotion ordinarily takes effect when granted, not merely when a vacancy arises or a recommendation is made
Source reference: p. 4–8Relying on Government of West Bengal v. Dr. Amal Satpathi, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3512, the Court held that, absent an enabling provision, an employee who retires before promotion is effectuated and does not assume the higher post is not entitled to retrospective promotional benefits
Source reference: p. 4–5, 9–10The judgment also referred to the principle that retrospective promotion or seniority cannot be granted in a manner that prejudices employees validly appointed in the meantime
Source reference: p. 8–9Reasoning
The petitioner’s inclusion in a departmental proposal established, at most, that he was considered for ad hoc promotion; it did not confer a vested right to promotion.
Source reference: p. 3–4, 9–11He retired as a Commercial Tax Officer and never assumed the duties of Assistant Commissioner.
Source reference: p. 3–4, 9–11Applying Amal Satpathi, the Court concluded that the proposal, which had not resulted in an effective promotion before retirement, could not support notional promotion or consequential pension benefits.
Source reference: p. 3–4, 9–11The Court also found no failure by the Government to provide an eligible benefit to the petitioner
Source reference: p. 3–4, 9–11Holding
The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to notional promotion or the associated pension and monetary benefits.
The writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Source reference: p. 11Original Court PDF
RAJENTHIRAN.K.S.NvsTHE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
