Promotion Dispute Resolved: Supreme Court Overrules Tribunal in Uttar Pradesh Government Case
The Supreme Court of India recently delivered an important judgment in the case of State of U.P. & Anr. vs. Shyam Lal Jaiswal. The ruling addressed a dispute regarding the promotion of a government employee after his reinstatement. The Court overturned the decision of the High Court of Allahabad, which had upheld the State Public Services Tribunal’s order in favor of the respondent, Shyam Lal Jaiswal.
The case revolved around a long legal battle that spanned decades, raising significant questions about the rights of reinstated employees and the procedural requirements for promotion in government service.
Background of the Case
Shyam Lal Jaiswal had been employed as a Cashier in the Transport Department since June 1967. However, he was dismissed from service on November 20, 1975, following a departmental inquiry into alleged misconduct. His dismissal was later overturned by the Tribunal on February 14, 1984. The Supreme Court ultimately confirmed the decision to set aside his dismissal by rejecting a Special Leave Petition against it on April 20, 2000.
Meanwhile, Jaiswal had reached the age of superannuation on March 31, 1996. Despite this, he initiated fresh legal proceedings, arguing that since his dismissal had been set aside, he was entitled to the same promotions that had been granted to his juniors, Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha and Mr. K.M. Haleem, who were appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutors on February 21, 1980.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The State of Uttar Pradesh challenged the Tribunal’s decision, contending that the claim for promotion made by Jaiswal was untenable under the applicable service rules. The government’s legal representatives emphasized that the recruitment to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor was governed by the Uttar Pradesh Transport (Subordinate) Prosecution Service Rules, 1979. These rules required that the appointment be made strictly through a competitive examination followed by a Viva Voce test conducted by the Commission.
The government argued that both the Tribunal and the High Court had overlooked these essential legal provisions when ruling in favor of Jaiswal.
Respondent’s Arguments
Jaiswal contended that since his dismissal had been deemed unlawful and set aside, he should be treated as if he had never been removed from service. Based on this principle, he claimed that he was entitled to be promoted retroactively, just as his juniors had been.
He maintained that his reinstatement effectively restored all his service rights, including the right to be considered for promotion at the appropriate time.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court closely examined the relevant service rules and found that the Tribunal and the High Court had erred in their interpretation. The Court specifically pointed to Rule 5 of the 1979 Rules, which mandated that the recruitment to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor be made strictly through direct recruitment via a competitive examination and Viva Voce test.
The judgment explicitly stated:
“Taking the Scheme of Rules 1979 and Rule 5, in particular, in our considered view, the order of the High Court confirming the order of the Tribunal is not sustainable in law.”
The Court emphasized that Jaiswal’s claim for promotion was not in accordance with the established legal framework. His juniors had been promoted through a specific process that he had not undergone, and thus, he could not claim an automatic right to similar promotion.
Judgment and Conclusion
After reviewing the legal provisions and the facts of the case, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh. The order of the High Court dated August 3, 2018, which had upheld the Tribunal’s ruling of December 12, 2013, was set aside.
This judgment reinforces the principle that promotions in government service must adhere strictly to the prescribed statutory process. It clarifies that reinstatement after an unlawful dismissal does not automatically entitle an employee to promotions that were granted to their colleagues in their absence.
The ruling serves as an important precedent for similar service matters, ensuring that all promotions within government departments follow the due process laid down by law.
Judges: The judgment was delivered by Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka.
Petition Result: Allowed
Petitioner Name: State of U.P. & Anr..Respondent Name: Shyam Lal Jaiswal.Judgment By: Justice Ajay Rastogi, Justice Abhay S. Oka.Place Of Incident: Uttar Pradesh.Judgment Date: 07-10-2021.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: state-of-u.p.-&-anr.-vs-shyam-lal-jaiswal-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-07-10-2021.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Promotion Cases
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Judgment by Ajay Rastogi
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay S. Oka
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments October 2021
See all petitions in 2021 judgments
See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
