The issue of whether promotional benefits can be extended to retired employees, particularly when juniors in service have been promoted earlier, has been a recurring question before Indian courts. The balance lies between service jurisprudence principles of fairness and equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and administrative limitations such as retirement, vacancies, and financial implications.
In H.P. Housing & Urban Development Authority v. Roop Lal Verma & Anr. (CWP No. 167 of 2018, decided on 26 August 2025), Himachal Pradesh High Court dealt with this precise question. The Court was confronted with a challenge to the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal’s order directing consideration of a retired employee’s promotion through a review DPC (Departmental Promotion Committee) with consequential benefits, despite his retirement.
This article undertakes a detailed analysis of the case, examining the facts, arguments, judicial reasoning, and its broader implications in service law.
Background of the Case
Facts of the Matter
Parties Involved:
- Petitioner: H.P. Housing & Urban Development Authority (the Authority).
- Respondent No. 1: Roop Lal Verma, a retired employee seeking promotional benefits.
- Respondent No. 2: State of Himachal Pradesh.
Timeline of Events:
- Roop Lal Verma was promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade-II on adhoc basis by order dated 28.09.2010.
- His juniors, Smt. Nirdosh Chauhan and Smt. Pushpa Devi, were promoted later in 2012 on adhoc basis but subsequently regularised by order dated 09.06.2015, effective from their promotion dates in 2012.
- Verma retired on 30.04.2013, before the issuance of the 2015 regularisation order.
- The Authority itself, in 2016, recommended to the Government the regularisation of services of retired employees like Verma, so that their pay could be fixed accordingly.
- Verma filed an Original Application in 2016 before the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which directed a review DPC to consider his claim for regular promotion and consequential benefits.
Authority’s Stand:
- The Authority argued that since the employee had already retired in 2013, and the Tribunal’s order was passed only in 2017, there was no subsisting vacancy or right to promotion after retirement.
Tribunal’s Order:
- The Tribunal directed that a review DPC be held within two months to consider Verma’s case. If found suitable, he was to be given notional promotion and all consequential benefits, with creation of a supernumerary post if necessary.
Issues Before the Court
The High Court examined the following legal questions:
- Whether an employee who retired before filing his application can still claim promotion if his juniors were promoted earlier during his service tenure?
- Whether the denial of such promotion on the ground of retirement is justified, despite principles of parity and fairness?
- Whether the Tribunal’s direction for creating a supernumerary post and granting retrospective benefits legally sustainable?
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s (Authority) Arguments
- Retirement Ends Promotional Prospects: Once an employee retires, he ceases to have any claim to promotion, as promotion is linked with the existence of a vacancy and service tenure.
- Timing of Application: The Original Application was filed in 2016, three years after retirement. Hence, the claim was belated and could not be enforced.
- Absence of Vacancy: At the time of Tribunal’s order, there was no available post to accommodate the respondent.
Respondent’s (Employee) Arguments
- Seniority Principle Violated: Being senior to Smt. Chauhan and Smt. Devi, the respondent ought to have been promoted when they were. Denial amounted to discrimination under Articles 14 and 16.
- Authority’s Own Recommendation: The Authority itself, in its communication dated 29.01.2016, acknowledged that similarly placed retired employees’ cases for regularisation should be examined.
- Precedents on Notional Promotion: Courts have consistently held that employees cannot be denied promotional benefits solely due to retirement, especially if juniors were promoted before them during their tenure.
Court’s Analysis
1. Tribunal’s Findings Reaffirmed
The High Court carefully reviewed the Tribunal’s reasoning, which highlighted that juniors were promoted while the respondent was still in service. The Tribunal concluded that since Verma retired in April 2013—after his juniors had been promoted in 2012—the denial of similar benefits violated equality principles.
2. Adhoc Promotion v. Regular Promotion
- Verma was already holding the post of Superintendent Grade-II on an adhoc basis since 2010.
- His juniors were promoted on adhoc basis only in 2012, but later regularised retrospectively from their promotion dates.
- Thus, even before retirement, Verma was entitled to consideration for regular promotion.
3. Retirement Not a Bar to Notional Promotion
The Court reiterated that retirement does not obliterate an employee’s right to be considered for promotion, especially when juniors are granted such benefits. Notional promotions, without actual posting, are permissible to safeguard seniority and pensionary benefits.
4. Authority’s Contradictory Conduct
The Court criticised the Authority for “blowing hot and cold.” On one hand, it recommended Verma’s case to the Government in 2016, and on the other hand, opposed the Tribunal’s order in court.
5. Judicial Directions
- The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the Tribunal’s order.
- It directed the Authority to implement the Tribunal’s directions within two months.
- The Court also disapproved of the Authority’s inaction despite no stay being granted against the Tribunal’s order.
Legal Principles Evolved
- Equality in Promotion: If juniors are promoted, seniors must be considered as well, irrespective of retirement. Denial violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
- Right to Consideration for Promotion: The right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental service right. Retirement does not extinguish this right if cause of action accrued during service.
- Notional Promotion and Supernumerary Posts: Courts can direct creation of supernumerary posts and grant notional promotions for the limited purpose of ensuring parity, seniority, and pension fixation.
- Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation: Employees who have been recommended by the authority itself, or whose juniors are promoted, can legitimately expect similar treatment.
- Administrative Accountability: Authorities are bound to implement Tribunal/Court orders promptly, failing which they may face judicial censure.
Comparative Judicial Precedents
Several precedents support the reasoning adopted in this case:
- Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman (1991) 4 SCC 109: Established that consideration for promotion cannot be denied due to pendency of disciplinary proceedings unless a charge-sheet is issued.
- State of Kerala v. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai (2007) 6 SCC 524: Held that retired employees can be granted notional promotion with consequential pensionary benefits.
- State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jalal Uddin (2005) 13 SCC 88: Reaffirmed that denial of promotion to a senior when juniors are promoted amounts to a violation of equality.
- Union of India v. Sangram Keshari Nayak (2007) 6 SCC 704: Clarified that promotion can be granted notionally to retirees to ensure fair pension fixation.
These decisions collectively reflect a consistent judicial trend favouring retired employees in cases of unfair denial of promotion.
Broader Implications of the Judgment
- For Employees: The judgment reassures employees that their rights will be protected even post-retirement, if promotional injustice occurred during service. It emphasises that retirement does not erase accrued service rights.
- For Employers/Authorities: Authorities must exercise caution in promotions, ensuring timely consideration of eligible employees. Any delay or selective promotion may invite judicial intervention and financial liability.
- For Service Jurisprudence: The decision reinforces constitutional guarantees of equality and fairness in employment, strengthening the jurisprudence of notional promotion and post-retirement benefits.
Conclusion
Himachal Pradesh High Court’s ruling in H.P. Housing & Urban Development Authority v. Roop Lal Verma & Anr. underscores that denial of promotional benefits post-retirement is unjustified if juniors were promoted earlier during the employee’s service tenure. The Court emphasised that retirement does not negate accrued rights and directed the Authority to extend notional promotion and consequential benefits to the retired employee.
This case strengthens the legal principle that fairness and equality in service matters must prevail over administrative excuses. It also sends a clear message to authorities that they cannot exploit retirement as a shield to deny rightful benefits to employees.
Ultimately, the decision aligns with constitutional mandates and existing precedents, ensuring that justice is neither delayed nor denied, even beyond the tenure of service.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams