Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Retrospective Seniority and Promotion Benefits; Holds Employee Bound by Initial Acceptance of Appointment Terms

Case Name: Sandeep Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others

Date of Judgment: 19 January 2026

Citation: CWP-11954-2022

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that an employee who consciously accepts appointment and subsequent promotion subject to specific terms cannot later claim retrospective seniority or promotional benefits contrary to those terms. The Court held that seniority flows from the date of regular appointment in accordance with rules and cannot be claimed from an earlier date in the absence of statutory entitlement.

Summary: The writ petition was filed seeking grant of retrospective seniority and consequential promotional benefits on the ground that the petitioner’s juniors had allegedly been promoted earlier. The petitioner was initially appointed under the Haryana Police as a Constable and was later promoted in due course. His grievance was that his seniority had not been correctly fixed, resulting in denial of further promotional avenues.

The petitioner contended that his case for promotion ought to have been considered from an earlier date and that denial of such consideration amounted to discrimination and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. He relied upon the alleged grant of benefit to other similarly situated employees.

The State opposed the petition, contending that the petitioner had accepted his appointment and promotion orders without protest, that seniority was fixed strictly in accordance with applicable service rules, and that no statutory provision entitled the petitioner to claim seniority from a date prior to his regular appointment.

The High Court held that seniority cannot be claimed as a matter of right dehors the statutory rules governing the service. It observed that the petitioner had accepted the terms of appointment and promotion without demur and could not subsequently turn around to challenge the same after a considerable lapse of time. The Court further held that parity cannot be claimed on the basis of alleged wrong benefit granted to others, if any, as negative equality has no place in service jurisprudence.

Finding no illegality or arbitrariness in the fixation of seniority or denial of retrospective benefits, the Court declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction.

Decision: The writ petition was dismissed. The Court upheld the action of the respondents in denying retrospective seniority and promotional benefits.