Retrospective appointment entitles an employee to consequential promotion benefits despite delayed actual joining.

The applicant was not initially selected for a Constable post in the 2010 recruitment, although he claimed sufficient marks, because his height was recorded incorrectly.

After re-measurement, he was appointed in 2013 and joined in 2014.

In SWP No. 1015/2015, the High Court directed that he receive retrospective appointment, at par with candidates appointed under Order No. 52/2011, while excluding actual salary for 2011–2014.

The respondents implemented that direction, treating him as appointed under the 2011 order and directing that his seniority be fixed according to his merit-list position.

He was later promoted to Selection Grade Constable with effect from 1 March 2021, with seniority fixed between Sgct. Shabir Ahmed and Sgct. Devinder Kumar.

The respondents subsequently cancelled that promotion, reverted him and ordered recovery of the alleged excess payment.

He challenged the cancellation before the Tribunal.

1. Whether the respondents could withdraw the applicant’s promotion by treating his actual joining date in 2014 as controlling, despite the retrospective appointment granted pursuant to the High Court’s judgment

2. Whether the respondents could recover amounts paid following the promotion where the applicant had not obtained the benefit through fraud or misrepresentation

The Tribunal applied the High Court’s judgment dated 11 March 2020, which granted the applicant retrospective appointment at par with candidates appointed under Order No. 52/2011, but denied actual salary for the period from 2011 to 2014.

It also relied on the respondents’ implementing order, which treated the applicant as appointed under the 2011 order and provided for seniority according to his merit-list position.

The Tribunal held that consequential service benefits could not be denied by reverting to the date of actual joining where the delayed appointment resulted from an error in the selection process, and that withdrawal and recovery were not sustainable in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation by the employee.

No other statute or precedent was identified as a basis for the decision

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s delayed joining resulted from the respondents’ incorrect recording of his height, not from any fault on his part.

The High Court had already determined his retrospective appointment, and the respondents had implemented that determination by treating him as appointed under the 2011 order.

The respondents could not rely on his 2014 physical joining date to deny consequential service benefits while giving effect to the retrospective appointment for appointment and seniority purposes.

Because the promotion had been granted by the department and there was no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation, the subsequent cancellation and recovery direction could not be sustained.

It directed the respondents to restore the applicant’s promotion to Selection Grade Constable with effect from 1 March 2021, his consequential seniority between Sgct. Shabir Ahmed and Sgct. Devinder Kumar, and the associated service benefits.

The recovery direction was also quashed; any amount already recovered was to be restored or adjusted in accordance with law.

The High Court’s restriction on payment of actual salary for 2011–2014 remained in force, and the respondents were directed to complete the exercise within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

No order as to costs.