Experience Gained While Holding Additional Charge Counts Towards Eligibility for Promotion, but Mere Eligibility or Existence of Vacancies Does Not Confer Right to Promotion: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case Name: Sanjiv Kumar v. State of Punjab and Another
Date of Judgment: 14 October 2026
Citation: CWP No. 14092 of 2021
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Namit Kumar
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that experience acquired while holding additional charge or current duty charge of a higher post is reckonable towards the qualifying experience required for further promotion, where the applicable service rules prescribe working experience without restricting it to regular service.
However, the Court clarified that mere fulfilment of eligibility conditions or availability of vacancies does not confer an indefeasible right to promotion or retrospective promotion. An employee has a right to be considered for promotion in accordance with the applicable rules, but cannot demand promotion from the date a vacancy arises solely because the requisite experience has been acquired.
Summary: The petitioner, an employee of the Punjab Water Resources Management and Development Corporation Limited, challenged the rejection of his claim for promotion from Sub Divisional Engineer to Divisional Engineer. He had joined service as a Junior Engineer in 1984 and subsequently discharged duties as Sub Divisional Engineer on additional charge before receiving regular promotion on 30.10.2015.
The petitioner contended that his additional-charge service, combined with regular service, amounted to approximately 12 years of experience, thereby satisfying the requirement of eight years’ working experience under the Punjab State Tubewell Corporation Employees Service Bye-laws, 1977. He sought promotion retrospectively from 01.03.2020, when vacancies were allegedly available.
The Corporation opposed the claim, contending that only regular service could be counted towards eligibility and that the petitioner had completed merely five years and nine months of regular service before retirement.
Relying on Chandigarh Administration v. Vipin Gupta, 2011(2) SCT 560, the Court held that working experience gained while discharging duties on additional charge, ad hoc or current duty charge basis cannot be excluded merely because the employee was not holding the post substantively. Accordingly, the Court found the petitioner eligible for consideration for promotion.
Nevertheless, distinguishing eligibility from entitlement, the Court relied upon Bihar State Electricity Board v. Dharamdeo Das, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1768, and Nirmal Chandra Sinha v. Union of India, 2008(2) SCT 675, reiterating that promotion ordinarily takes effect when granted and not from the date of occurrence of a vacancy.
The Court further noted that the petitioner stood fourth in the seniority list, none of the three senior employees had been promoted, and there was no evidence of any Departmental Promotion Committee meeting during the relevant period or promotion of a junior while overlooking the petitioner. Consequently, no arbitrary denial of the petitioner’s right to consideration was established.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that although the petitioner possessed the requisite qualifying experience by including his additional-charge service, such eligibility did not automatically entitle him to promotion.
Since no junior had been promoted ahead of him and no illegality or arbitrariness in the Corporation’s action was established, the Court declined to direct retrospective promotion or grant consequential benefits.