Right to Consideration for Promotion Continues After Retirement, Even If Claim Wasn’t Handled During Employment: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court, led by Justice Sashikanta Mishra, dismissed Somanath Mandal’s claim for a notional promotion as a retired employee of the Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology (OUAT). However, the court instructed the university to investigate whether there were any vacancies in the unreserved (UR) category during the relevant period. The court affirmed that an employee’s right to be considered for promotion, if accrued during their service, does not expire upon retirement. It highlighted that the employer’s failure to address a legitimate promotion claim while the employee was still in service does not negate the employee’s entitlement to consideration even after retirement.

Background

Somanath Mandal began his tenure at OUAT as a Junior Assistant on December 15, 1986, and was subsequently promoted to Senior Assistant in 1990, Section Officer Level-II in 2005, and Section Officer Level-I in 2009. As a Scheduled Caste (SC) candidate, Mandal sought promotion to the Assistant Registrar (Accounts Officer) position, which is reserved for SC and ST candidates. He argued that, despite his qualifications and seniority, he was overlooked in favor of junior officers under the “catch-up” principle, which restored the seniority of previously promoted individuals who had been surpassed due to reservations.

Mandal had earlier contested his exclusion from promotion in W.P.(C) No. 9884 of 2014. Following the court’s direction for OUAT to consider his representation, his claim was rejected in 2014 on the basis that the position had already been filled by another officer, Madhusudan Behera. His promotion was to be considered only if the position became vacant. Although Behera retired in May 2015, Mandal was not promoted. By the time Mandal retired on January 31, 2020, his promotion grievances remained unresolved, leading him to amend his writ petition to seek a notional promotion and related pension benefits.

Arguments

Somanath Mandal’s Position

Mandal, represented by Mr. P.K. Ray, contended that his initial appointment and subsequent promotions as an SC candidate were valid under the Odisha Reservation of Vacancies (ORV) Act, which allows for the exchange of posts between SC and ST categories. He argued that despite being eligible and promised consideration after Behera’s retirement, his case was ignored. Mandal claimed that a vacancy existed in the UR category for which he qualified and that OUAT’s failure to promote him before his retirement was unjust. He requested a notional promotion effective from 2011 and the correction of his pension benefits.

OUAT’s Defense

OUAT, represented by Mr. P. Panda, countered that Mandal’s initial appointment under the ST category was irregular, violating the ORV Act’s provisions. The Act only permits the exchange of posts when there are no SC/ST candidates available, which was not the case at Mandal’s recruitment. Furthermore, OUAT asserted that a government clarification in 2019 indicated that Mandal could only be considered as a UR category candidate. The university maintained that there were no vacancies in the UR category at the time of his retirement, preventing Mandal’s case from being processed. They also noted that objections were invited regarding the revised gradation list, but it was unclear whether Mandal’s objections were considered before his retirement. Additionally, OUAT argued that promotions could only be granted after a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting, which could not take place after Mandal’s retirement. Therefore, they claimed Mandal’s request for a notional promotion lacked merit.

Court’s Reasoning

Appointment Irregularity

The court first addressed the irregularity in Mandal’s initial appointment under the ST category, despite him being from the SC community. Although OUAT and the government argued this violated the ORV Act, the court found Mandal was not at fault for this irregularity. Given that he had served for decades without challenge, the court ruled that his initial appointment should not be questioned after such a long time. Thus, Mandal’s appointment was regularized, and he would be treated as a UR candidate based on the 2019 government clarification.

Promotion Consideration

Regarding the promotion dispute, the court stressed that while no employee has an inherent right to promotion, there is a right to be considered for it. The university’s failure to address Mandal’s case after the 2019 clarification was deemed unacceptable. His right to consideration for promotion persisted despite his retirement, as his application remained pending.

Evidence of Vacancies

However, the court noted the lack of clear evidence about the availability of vacancies in the UR category at the time the clarification was issued. OUAT’s failure to provide details on the gradation list and vacancy status, despite inviting objections, was seen as a significant oversight in their defense.

Denial of Notional Promotion

The court also rejected OUAT’s argument that Mandal’s claim for notional promotion was irrelevant due to his retirement. While Mandal had indeed retired, he had a valid right to have been considered for promotion during his service. Denying him this right based on the technicality of retirement was deemed inappropriate.

Conclusion

While the court did not grant Mandal the notional promotion he sought, it directed OUAT to determine if a vacancy existed in the UR category following the 2019 clarification. If such a vacancy was found and Mandal met the eligibility criteria, OUAT was ordered to grant him a notional promotion, adjust his final pay, and revise his pension and benefits accordingly. The court emphasized that this order would apply only if a vacancy existed and Mandal met all requirements at the relevant time, giving the university two months to comply with these directives.