Retrospective promotion benefits cannot be granted after an employee’s retirement.

The petitioner, a Child Development Project Officer in the Women and Child Development Department, challenged the review DPC proceedings conducted on 7 September 2018 and sought a direction for convening a review DPC in respect of the earlier DPC held on 17 August 2017 for promotion to the post of Assistant Director.

During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner retired from service on superannuation on 31 July 2021, a fact established by the documents placed on record by him.

The State opposed the claim, and the Court considered whether any promotional relief could still be granted after retirement.

Whether the petitioner could be granted promotional or notional promotional relief pursuant to a review of the DPC proceedings held on 17 August 2017, despite having retired from service on 31 July 2021.

Whether a retired government servant could claim retrospective promotion or consequential benefits when promotion had not actually been granted during the period of service.

The Court relied on Government of West Bengal & Ors. v. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors., 2024 (14) SCALE 294, which held that promotion becomes effective from the date it is granted and not from the date on which a vacancy arises or a post is created; an employee has a fundamental right to be considered for promotion, but no fundamental right to promotion itself.

The Court also relied on Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors. v. Dharamdeo Das, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1768, and the principles stated in Ajay Kumar Shukla v. Arvind Rai, (2022) 12 SCC 579, Director, Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty, (1991) 2 SCC 295, and Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, (1999) 7 SCC 209, concerning the right to fair consideration for promotion under Article 16(1).

The Court further noted that retrospective promotion or seniority cannot ordinarily be granted from a date when the employee was not borne in the promotional cadre, particularly where such relief may prejudice other employees, as recognised in State of Bihar v. Akhouri Sachindra Nath, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 334, Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 272, and Uttaranchal Forest Rangers’ Association (Direct Recruit) v. State of U.P., (2006) 10 SCC 346.

The Court treated the petitioner’s retirement as decisive.

Although an employee possesses a right to be considered for promotion in accordance with the applicable rules, that right does not automatically confer a right to retrospective promotion or promotion-related benefits after retirement.

Since the petitioner had retired on 31 July 2021, the Court held that he could not be granted the claimed promotion with retrospective effect.

Consequently, the requested review of the earlier DPC and the resulting promotional relief could not be meaningfully or legally granted after cessation of service.

The writ petition challenging the review DPC proceedings and seeking a fresh review DPC was dismissed, with no promotional relief or consequential directions granted.