In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made a clear distinction between an employee's right to be considered for promotion and the right to promotion itself. The court has categorically stated that promotion is not a fundamental or vested right of a government employee.
The Case of the Senior Town Planner
Justice Namit Kumar was presiding over a petition filed by a woman employee from Patiala. She had sought directions for her promotion to the post of Senior Town Planner in the Department of Town and Country Planning, Punjab, before her retirement. The petitioner had a long career, having joined as a Junior Draftsman in 1990. She was promoted to Planning Draftsman in 2008, later became an Assistant Town Planner via the Punjab Public Service Commission, and was eventually promoted to District Town Planner.
In 2023, after completing five years as a District Town Planner, she became eligible for promotion to Senior Town Planner. She was even assigned the current duty charge of the Senior Town Planner post. However, her representation for promotion prior to retirement was not considered by the department.
The Court's Legal Reasoning and Verdict
In its detailed order, the court relied on settled legal principles. Justice Kumar observed, "As per settled law, promotion is neither a vested nor fundamental right. Only consideration for promotion is a fundamental right." Based on this, the court found no fault in the department's action of not promoting her.
The court, therefore, rejected her plea for promotion to the post of Senior Town Planner. However, in a partial relief, the bench allowed her claim for the pay and allowances corresponding to the higher post. The court held her entitled to the pay scale of a Senior Town Planner from July 21, 2023—the date she was given the current duty charge—until her retirement date.
The Disability Certificate Controversy
The department's reply revealed a complicating factor. The petitioner had submitted a hearing disability certificate showing a 41% temporary disability, which allowed her to claim benefits, including an extended retirement age of 60 years instead of 58. Later, she submitted another certificate indicating a 53% permanent disability.
The existence of two differing certificates raised suspicion. A Medical Board subsequently declared her hearing disability as 'not permanent'. Consequently, the competent authority rejected her claim to be considered a handicapped employee and decided to retire her upon attaining 58 years of age. This backdrop was part of the overall context of the case, though the core legal ruling focused on the principle of promotion.
The judgment reinforces a crucial precedent for government service matters across Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh. It underscores that while the process of consideration for promotion is protected, the actual promotion depends on departmental rules, vacancies, and suitability, and cannot be claimed as an absolute right by an employee.
