Department Can’t Delay Promotion to Defeat Retirement Benefits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Notional Promotion to Retired Engineer

Case Name: Bharat Bhushan v. State of Punjab and Others

Date of Judgment: 07 March 2026

Citation: LPA-1584-2025

Bench: Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Deepak Manchanda

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that where a government employee is recommended for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee but the authorities deliberately delay implementation until his retirement and subsequently promote junior officers, such action is mala fide. The Court granted the retired officer notional promotion with consequential pensionary benefits, holding that denial of consideration for promotion violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Summary: The appellant, Bharat Bhushan, was serving as a Superintending Engineer and Director in the Water Resources and Environment Directorate of the Punjab Government. Under the Punjab Irrigation Group-A Service Rules, 2004, the next promotional post was that of Chief Engineer. A Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) convened on 18 February 2021 assessed eligible officers and recommended the appellant for promotion, placing him at Serial No. 1 with an “outstanding” grading against a vacancy that had arisen earlier in January 2021.

Since the appellant was nearing retirement on 01 March 2021, he submitted a representation requesting that the promotion be granted before his superannuation. However, before any decision was taken, an Officers’ Committee meeting on 31 March 2021 suggested restructuring the department and reducing the number of Chief Engineer posts from fourteen to ten. Acting on this recommendation, the department cancelled the DPC recommendations on the same day. Coincidentally, the appellant retired from service on that very date.

The appellant thereafter sought notional promotion but his claim was rejected on the ground that promotions were approved after his retirement. Meanwhile, other officers whose names appeared below him in the DPC recommendation list were promoted as Chief Engineers. His writ petition seeking notional promotion was dismissed by the Single Bench, which relied on Supreme Court precedent stating that there is generally no concept of retrospective promotion unless the employee has actually assumed the duties of the promotional post.

Challenging that decision, the appellant argued before the Division Bench that the authorities had acted mala fide. He contended that the restructuring exercise was merely a pretext to delay his promotion until he retired. He further argued that the sanctioned strength of fourteen posts of Chief Engineer had already been approved and could only be altered by the Council of Ministers under the Rules of Business of the Government of Punjab, 1992.

The Division Bench examined the record and noted that although the Officers’ Committee had recommended reduction of posts, the procedure required for restructuring—including approval from the Finance Department and the Council of Ministers—had not been followed. Therefore, the alleged reduction in the number of posts lacked proper authority.

The Court also found it significant that immediately after the appellant’s retirement, officers placed below him in the DPC recommendation list were promoted. This sequence of events strongly suggested that the authorities intentionally delayed implementation of the DPC recommendations to deprive the appellant of promotion before retirement.

Referring to Supreme Court precedent in Major General H.M. Singh v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that while an employee does not possess a vested right to promotion, he has a fundamental right to fair consideration for promotion. Administrative actions that arbitrarily deny such consideration can violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The Court concluded that the cancellation and delay of the DPC recommendations were not bona fide and were clearly intended to defeat the appellant’s legitimate claim for promotion.

Decision: The Division Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Single Bench as well as the departmental order denying promotion. The respondents were directed to grant the appellant notional promotion to the post of Chief Engineer with effect from 31 March 2021 and revise his pensionary benefits accordingly. The consequential monetary benefits were ordered to be released within three months.