Eligible employee cannot be denied promotion benefits due to departmental delay: DB

24/10/2026

JAMMU, Oct 23: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a petition filed by the Union Territory administration challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal order directing regularisation of an empl-oyee's promotion as Section Officer, along with consequential financial and pensionary benefits.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice M. A. Chowdhary upheld the Tribunal's judgment dated December 2, 2025, in favour of Dev Raj, an employee of the Public Works Department, observing that an eligible employee's claim for promotion must be considered in accordance with the applicable service rules and cannot be disregarded due to prolonged departmental inaction.
The Tribunal had directed the administration to regularise Dev Raj's promotion as Section Officer from the date he was placed as In-charge Section Officer or the date he became eligible for promotion, whichever was later. It had also directed consideration of his subsequent promotion as Adminis-trative Officer and grant of admissible consequential benefits, including salary arrears and revision of pensionary entitlements.
Dev Raj was initially appointed as a Junior Assistant in the Designs, Inspections and Quality Control Wing of the Public Works Department on February 21, 1979. He was promoted as Senior Assistant in 1985 and Head Assistant with effect from October 29, 1990. He was subsequently assigned charge of Section Officer from August 1, 2000, but his promotion was not formally regularised despite repeated departmental recommendations.
Challenging the Tribunal's directions, the UT administration argued that holding charge of a higher post did not automatically confer a right to regular promotion. Additional Advocate General Ravinder Gupta submitted that the employee became eligible for regular promotion only on November 21, 2011, and could not claim regularisation from August 2000.
Advocate Nitin Bhasin, appearing for Dev Raj, opposed the petition.
After examining the service record and applicable recruitment rules, the Division Bench observed that although an in-charge arrangement does not automatically confer a vested right to regular promotion, the claim of an otherwise eligible employee must be considered in accordance with the governing rules.
The court noted that Dev Raj had completed more than nine years of service as Head Assistant when he was assigned charge of Section Officer in August 2000, against the prescribed requirement of five years of qualifying service. The Bench observed that the administration had failed to establish how he was ineligible for promotion at that stage.
It also took note of repeated departmental recommendations for regularisation and the prolonged failure of the authorities to take a final decision on the matter.
The Bench held that the administration had failed to demonstrate any violation of the applicable recruitment rules or legal infirmity in the Tribunal's decision.
Regarding the claim for subsequent promotion as Administrative Officer, the court clarified that consideration for the post would not confer an automatic right to promotion and would have to be undertaken strictly in accordance with the applicable rules.
The Bench further observed that the employee's initial placement on an officiating basis could not, by itself, justify denial of salary arrears arising from regularisation of his promotion from the applicable date.
Dismissing the UT administration's petition, the High Court directed implementation of the Tribunal's judgment, including the consequential benefits admissible under the applicable service rules.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty