Right to consideration for promotion accrues when a junior employee is promoted over their senior.

The petitioner was appointed as a Male Family Welfare Worker on compassionate grounds in 1986.

Under a 1979 Union of India policy (adopted by the State of Bihar in 1993), graduate workers in this cadre were entitled to a promotion ladder leading to Block Extension Educator, then Deputy District Extension and Media Officer ("DDEMO"), and finally District Extension and Media Officer ("DEMO").

The petitioner was eventually promoted to Block Extension Educator in 2008, but he alleged that juniors were promoted much earlier.

In WP(S) 2523/2016, the petitioner sought revision of pay scales and grade pay protection.

In WP(S) 4044/2017, he sought a retrospective revision of his promotion date to Block Extension Educator.

In WP(S) 3994/2017, he sought further promotion to the posts of DDEMO/DEMO.

During the pendency of these petitions, the State notified the Jharkhand Health Regional Worker (Appointment, Promotion and other Service Conditions) Rule, 2023, and argued that the posts sought in WP(S) 3994/2017 no longer existed.

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a specific pay scale/grade pay fixation for his 2nd MACP benefit.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a retrospective revision of his promotion date based on the promotion of his juniors.

3. Whether the State is mandated to finalize seniority lists and consider promotions under the newly notified Service Rules of 2023, even if the original promotional posts have been abolished.

The court relied on the principle that while an employee has no fundamental right to promotion, they possess a recognized legal right to be considered for promotion.

The court cited Daya Ram v. The State of Jharkhand (2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 141), which establishes that the right to consideration for promotion accrues the moment a junior is considered for the same.

The court applied the Jharkhand Health Regional Worker (Appointment, Promotion and other Service Conditions) Rule, 2023.

The court applied Finance Department Resolution No. 1117 dated 03.06.2011 regarding MACP scales.

Regarding pay fixation, the court noted the petitioner had received the 2nd MACP at the grade pay of ₹4600, which appeared consistent with the 2011 Resolution; however, it allowed the petitioner to raise specific discrepancies before the Deputy Commissioner.

On the issue of seniority and retrospective promotion, the court found that the petitioner’s evidence (Annexure-14) indicated that juniors were promoted earlier. Applying the Daya Ram precedent, the court held that if a junior was promoted first, the petitioner’s date of promotion must be revised.

Regarding future promotions, the court acknowledged that while the specific posts of DDEMO/DEMO were abolished, the State, as a "model employer," cannot leave employees in a vacuum.

Since the 2023 Rules were framed under Article 309, the State is duty-bound to implement them by finalizing seniority lists and convening Departmental Promotion Committees ("DPC") expeditiously.

In WP(S) 4044/2017, the Deputy Commissioner must examine seniority records and, if juniors were promoted earlier, revise the petitioner's promotion date within 10 weeks and release monetary benefits.

In WP(S) 3994/2017, the State was directed to finalize the seniority list under the 2023 Rules within 3 months and constitute a DPC for promotional consideration within 4 weeks thereafter.

The High Court disposed of the writ petitions. No order as to costs was made.