Rule relaxation is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a right to secure retrospective promotion.

The first respondent was appointed as a Panchayat Assistant on 1 September 1979 and was appointed as a Junior Assistant with effect from 8 January 1999 by transfer of service under the 10% quota reserved for Panchayat Assistants.

He retired on 30 April 2016. Relying on G.O.Ms.No.1170, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 30 October 1984, he sought relaxation of the service rules and retrospective promotion as Junior Assistant from the date of his initial representation, dated 11 April 2011.

A further representation was submitted in 2015, but the District Collector rejected the claim by proceedings dated 1 April 2019.

The respondent challenged that rejection in W.P.No.9904 of 2021, contending that he had appeared in departmental examinations on more than five occasions and was therefore entitled to the benefit of the Government Order.

The Single Judge allowed the writ petition, resulting in the present appeal by the authorities.

1. Whether the respondent was entitled to relaxation of the relevant service rules and the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.1170 dated 30 October 1984, notwithstanding the applicable age limit and the delay in seeking such relief.

2. Whether the power to relax the service rules could be invoked to grant the respondent retrospective promotion as Junior Assistant from the date of his representation.

The Court applied the principle that a Government Order granting relaxation of service rules must be construed and applied subject to its prescribed conditions, including the requirement that the employee be below 53 years of age.

It further held that relaxation of service rules is a discretionary concession vested in the Government, not an enforceable right of an employee.

Such power must be exercised judiciously to remove genuine inequality or injustice and cannot be used routinely to confer retrospective promotion or to enlarge a concession already granted.

Appointment by transfer of service itself constitutes a concession, and retrospective relaxation for securing retrospective promotion is impermissible in the circumstances of the case.

The respondent had accepted appointment as Junior Assistant by transfer on 8 January 1999 and continued in that post for approximately 15 years before submitting his further representation in 2015. He retired on 30 April 2016, having crossed the age of 53 years. The Court therefore held that the age-related requirement under G.O.Ms.No.1170 was not satisfied and that the Government Order was inapplicable.

Independently, the Court reasoned that the respondent could not claim relaxation as of right. Since his appointment by transfer was itself a concession, permitting retrospective relaxation from the date of his 2011 representation would amount to granting retrospective promotion through an exceptional power intended only to remedy inequality or injustice, rather than to confer an additional service benefit routinely.

It held that the respondent was not entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.1170 or to retrospective relaxation of the service rules for promotion as Junior Assistant.

No order as to costs was made, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.