Court Orders Retrospective Promotion, Arrears and Pension Refixation After Quashing Long‑Delayed Departmental Proceedings

A bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran heard an appeal concerning whether a Division Bench had rightly refused to entertain a contempt petition that sought enforcement of a High Court direction to grant retrospective promotion and consequential benefits after departmental proceedings were set aside. The appeal arose from a challenge to the Division Bench's finding that a claim for retrospective promotion "to relate back" to the date on which the appellant’s immediate junior was promoted was "clearly unfair" in the context of the writ petition.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, held that the Division Bench erred in rejecting the contempt petition, and directed that the appellant be treated as promoted from the date on which her immediate junior was promoted, with all consequential financial benefits and pensionary fixation. The Court emphasised that the departmental proceedings were initiated after an inordinate delay and were conducted in violation of principles governing such enquiries; accordingly the proceedings and the penalty were set aside and retrospective relief was mandated. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: Background

The appellant, Jyotshna Singh, who had served as a Block Development Officer in the Jharkhand State Administrative Service, faced an audit objection in 2007 concerning an alleged excess payment of Rs.5,60,000. The Deputy Commissioner of Latehar found no reason to treat the expenditure as embezzlement and the State Audit Team accepted that report in July 2009. Notwithstanding continuous service and promotions thereafter, the State issued a charge‑sheet only on 25.05.2017 and imposed punishment by an order withholding three increments with effect from 15.10.2019. The appellant challenged the departmental proceedings in the High Court, which set aside the proceedings in toto, finding that the charge was unexplained by the State and that the enquiry relied on unproved documents; the High Court placed reliance on authorities including Roop Singh Negi v. PNB and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh concerning undue delay.

Following the High Court order, the Division Bench directed consideration of consequential benefits including promotion with retrospective effect. The State, however, promoted the appellant only on 30.11.2022 while her immediate junior, Mrs. Uma Mahato, had been promoted on 13.03.2020 after relaxation of eligibility requirements. The State contended the appellant was ineligible for relaxation on account of the penalty in force at the time of the DPC. The Supreme Court found that, because the penalty and proceedings were quashed for being sham and delayed, the appellant was entitled to retrospective promotion from the date her junior was promoted, with arrears and pension fixation accordingly.

The Court directed that the respondents complete the exercise and pay the entire arrears, refix the appellant’s pension if she had retired (her retirement date having been 31.12.2023), and provide a written computation within four months. The judgment also provided: "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..." The appeal was allowed and pending applications were disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1138 (SLP(C) No.15932 of 2024) Case Title: Jyotshna Singh v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the judgment