Promotion Must Be Based on Service Rules and Eligibility

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has rejected a former railway employee’s request for retrospective promotion from 1986 and salary arrears exceeding ₹45 lakh. The court observed that promotion cannot be claimed as an automatic right unless the employee establishes eligibility under the applicable service rules.

Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke, in an order dated October 22, stated that performing certain duties or receiving the same benefits as other employees does not automatically establish entitlement to promotion. Such claims must be supported by recruitment rules, eligibility conditions and the employee’s service records.

The court also clarified that a claim for salary arrears depends on whether the employee was legally entitled to the promotion and the resulting pay revision.

The petitioner had initially joined the Railways as a casual labourer, known as a Khalasi, in 1978. He was appointed as a permanent Gangman in 1992 and sought promotion to the post of Mate from July 20, 1986. He also demanded salary differences and other benefits for the relevant periods.

Earlier Proceedings and Lack of Evidence Weakened the Claim

The former employee alleged that railway authorities had withheld his salary for certain periods and incorrectly recorded his attendance. He also challenged departmental proceedings initiated over alleged unauthorised absence, which resulted in his removal from service. His removal was subsequently set aside, and he was reinstated in January 2016.

After seeking relief from departmental authorities, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), demanding promotion and approximately ₹45 lakh in salary arrears. The tribunal dismissed his application in February 2020, finding that he had failed to establish his entitlement. He then challenged the decision before the High Court.

The High Court noted that the petitioner had previously approached the CAT in 2007 for promotion from the same date. However, earlier proceedings and departmental correspondence alone could not establish a legally enforceable right.

The court also found that the consolidated monetary claim lacked a clear calculation of the applicable pay scale, eligible period, attendance records and legal basis for payment.

The ruling highlights that government employees seeking promotion and financial benefits must establish their claims through applicable service rules and documentary evidence.