Jyotshna Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand
- Neutral2025 INSC 1138
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where departmental proceedings against a public servant have been set aside by a court on the grounds that the proceedings were initiated with inordinate delay (here, approximately 10 years after the alleged misconduct was investigated and cleared) and were conducted in violation of the principles governing such proceedings, the consequential relief of retrospective promotion must be granted with effect from the date on which the employee's immediate junior in the same cadre was promoted, not from any later date, notwithstanding that the employee was under a penalty on the date the promotion committee met, since the penalty itself has been expunged as part of the set-aside proceedings. Where a Division Bench has issued a mandamus directing consideration of consequential benefits including retrospective promotion after setting aside departmental proceedings, and the State has not complied with those directions by granting promotion from the proper date, a court will enforce compliance by directing the State to promote the employee from the date the immediate junior was promoted, applying the same relaxation of service requirements that was granted to the junior. Where an employee has been granted retrospective promotion by court order, all consequential benefits including pay, allowances, and pension refixation must be calculated and paid from the date of retrospective promotion, and if the employee has retired, the pension must be refixed on the basis of the higher pay in the promoted post.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No. of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.15932 of 2024)
Jyotshna Singh
…Appellant Versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors. …Respondents
JUDGMENT
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appeal arises from an order in a contempt case
wherein the Division Bench refused to entertain the petition,
finding that in the context of the prayers made before the writ
court, the submission that the retrospective promotion
directed in the LPA should relate back to the date on which
the appellant’s immediate junior was promoted, was clearly Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by POOJA SHARMA unfair. The order in the LPA from which the contempt petition Date: 2025.09.22 18:54:33 IST Reason:
Page 1 of 9 CA @ SLP(C) No.15932 of 2024
arose, issued a mandamus categorically directing
consideration of consequential benefits of writ petitioner
including consideration of her case for promotion with
retrospective effect, after setting aside the disciplinary
proceedings initiated with a delay of about 10 years, which
proceeding was also conducted in total violation of the
principles governing departmental proceedings.
3. We are of the view that the Division Bench egregiously
erred in rejecting the contempt petition. Considering the
long pendency as also the fact that the appellant is now
retired, we were inclined to consider the merits of the claim
made before the contempt court, for which a brief reference
to the background facts is absolutely necessary.
4. The appellant was working as a BDO in the Jharkhand
State Administrative Service and while posted at Chandwa
Block noticed improper entries in the cash book for which
proceedings were taken against the Nazir of the Block, twice,
and it was also reported to the Deputy Commissioner. On her
transfer, she properly handed over charge to her successor
Page 2 of 9 CA @ SLP(C) No.15932 of 2024 and entrusted the cash book with the correct entries. Later,
the Audit Team of the office of the Accountant General
conducting an audit raised an objection with respect to an
excess payment of Rs.5,60,000/- pointing out that it could be
a misappropriation. Based on the objection raised the Deputy
Commissioner, Latehar looked into the matter and
categorically found that there was no reason to find
embezzlement and the money expended was within the
estimated cost. The State Audit Team accepted the said report
on 17.07.2009. The appellant uninterruptedly continued in
service and was also given due promotions.
5. Much later, on 25.05.2017, a charge-sheet was issued by
the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar relating to the
embezzlement pointed out as an objection by the Audit Team
of the office of the Accountant General. An order was also
passed imposing the punishment of withholding three
increments with effect from 15.10.2019. The appellant
challenged the same before the High Court in which it was
found that the allegation in the charge-sheet regarding
Page 3 of 9 CA @ SLP(C) No.15932 of 2024 interpolations in the cash book was properly explained by
the appellant. It was also observed that the State led no
evidence in the departmental enquiry to prove the charge
and the enquiry officer merely relied on some documents
produced which were not marked or proved. Relying on
Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and Others1 the
departmental proceedings were set aside in toto. Reliance
was also placed on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh
and Another2 to further fault the State for having initiated
proceedings after a lapse of about 10 years. The alleged
objection of the Audit Team was raised on 27.07.2007, which
was properly explained and verified to be not a defalcation,
while the departmental proceedings on the same issue was
initiated on 25.05.2017. The Division Bench, according to us
rightly set aside the entire departmental proceedings
including the penalty imposed and directed consideration of
1 (2009) 2 SCC 570 2 1990 (Supp.) SCC 738
Page 4 of 9 CA @ SLP(C) No.15932 of 2024 her promotion with retrospective effect and all consequential
benefits.
6. Before us learned counsel for the appellant specifically
pointed out the seniority list as produced at Annexure P1
indicates the appellant at serial no.733. The claim of the
appellant is that the appellant ought to have been promoted
to the post of Joint Secretary on the date on which her
immediate junior at serial no.734, Mrs. Uma Mahato was
promoted. As per Annexure P7 order passed purportedly in
compliance of Division Bench order in the LPA, the appellant
has been promoted to the post of Joint Secretary only on
30.11.2022 and the financial benefits and other facilities in the
promoted post granted only from the date of assumption of
charge. As indicated in Annexure P1-seniority list, the
appellant’s retirement date is 31.12.2023 and the order has
come on 27.02.2024. The learned counsel for the State of
Jharkhand read to us Annexure P7 order in an attempt to
uphold the promotion granted with effect from 2022 while
Page 5 of 9 CA @ SLP(C) No.15932 of 2024 admitting that the appellant’s immediate junior Mrs. Uma
Mahato was promoted on 13.03.2020.
7. The contention of the State is that the appellant was
promoted to the post of Additional Collector only on
19.05.2015 and the rules required a minimum of 5 years’
service for promotion to the next post of Joint Secretary. The
Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was held on
13.03.2020 when the appellant was under the rigor of
punishment imposed in departmental proceedings.
Relaxation in the stipulated period of service, according to
the departmental resolution, which is read in the order, can
be made applicable only to an officer who is not responsible
for the delay in promotion or the main reason for not getting
promotion is the delay in departmental proceedings, none of
which is applicable in the case of appellant who had been
imposed with punishment as on the date of DPC; which
clearly makes her ineligible for relaxation of the minimum
required period of service for considering her for promotion.
Page 6 of 9 CA @ SLP(C) No.15932 of 2024
8. Admittedly, Mrs. Uma Mahato, junior of the appellant
was considered on 13.03.2020, obviously after granting
relaxation. Even according to the State, the denial of
consideration of the appellant was only on account of the
punishment imposed. The punishment imposed together with
the entire departmental proceedings have been set aside for
reason of the proceedings itself being a sham proceeding
and also for the reason of long delay in initiation of the
proceeding with respect to an allegation of about 10 years in
the past.
9. The punishment has been set aside and the
departmental proceeding found to be in violation of
established principles. Consequential benefits including
retrospective promotion was directed. The appellant should
be considered for promotion from the date on which her
immediate junior, Mrs. Uma Mahato was considered in the
DPC. Since there is no other allegation against the appellant
in strict compliance /directions issued by the Division Bench
in LPA No.467 of 2022, the State ought to have promoted the
Page 7 of 9 CA @ SLP(C) No.15932 of 2024 appellant to the post of Joint Secretary, on the date on which
her immediate junior, Mrs. Uma Mahato was promoted;
giving her relaxation in the minimum experience for
consideration for promotion as has been done in the case of
Mrs. Uma Mahato.
10. The appellant is also entitled to consequential benefits
as directed in LPA No.467 of 2022 which includes the entire
pay and allowances and also, in the event of the appellant
having retired, fixation of pension as per the last pay drawn
on the retrospective promotion granted. Appropriate orders
shall be passed by the respondents, and the appellant shall
be paid the entire arrears of pay and allowances as a Joint
Secretary right from the date on which her immediate junior,
Mrs. Uma Mahato was promoted and her pension shall be
refixed and arrears paid accordingly, if she has retired.
11. The above exercise shall be completed within a period
of four months and the entire amounts due shall be paid to the
appellant within the stipulated time, along with the written
computation of the financial facilities granted on such
Page 8 of 9 CA @ SLP(C) No.15932 of 2024 retrospective promotion. There shall be no interest claimed
by the appellant if the amounts are paid within the stipulated
time and if the State fails to carry out the directions in this
judgment, the appellant shall be entitled to 7% interest on the
arrears computed, from today and if the failure to comply with
the directions in this judgment is by any officer/s of the State,
the State shall be free to recover the additional liability of
interest from such officers/employees occasioning the delay
after issuing notice and taking appropriate proceedings
against the said officers/employees.
12. The appeal stands allowed with the above directions.
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
……….……………………... CJI.
(B.R. GAVAI)
……….…………………….….. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 22, 2025.
Page 9 of 9 CA @ SLP(C) No.15932 of 2024
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free