SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed a decision denying substantive promotion to two retired officers to the post of General Manager, holding that the Establishment-cum-Finance Committee had failed to properly consider their cases.
Justice Sanjay Dhar, in a judgment pronounced on August 29, 2026, directed the respondents to reconsider the promotion cases of Mohammad Yousuf Ahanger and another petitioner to the post of General Manager on the basis of their service records.
The court directed that the exercise be completed within two months from the date a copy of the judgment is made available to the respondents.
The petitioners had challenged the decision taken by the Establishment-cum-Finance Committee at its meeting on September 8, 2016, through which they were held ineligible for confirmation as General Managers.
Both petitioners had served as Incharge General Managers in the respondent corporation and had subsequently retired from service. Petitioner No. 1, Mohammad Yousuf Ahanger, retired on March 31, 2012, while petitioner No. 2 retired on May 31, 2012.
The court noted that the petitioners had earlier approached it through SWP No. 2095/2012, seeking substantive promotion after having been placed as Incharge General Managers. In its judgment dated March 18, 2015, the court had directed the corporation to convene a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) and place their cases before it for consideration of promotion from the date their entitlement had accrued.
After the corporation failed to comply with the directions, the petitioners filed contempt proceedings. During the pendency of those proceedings, the Establishment-cum-Finance Committee rejected their promotion claims in its September 8, 2016 meeting.
The respondents argued that the petitioners had only held the higher posts on a stop-gap basis against charge allowance and that such arrangements did not confer any right to substantive promotion.
The High Court, however, observed that the corporation itself had admitted that the petitioners were ordered to hold the higher posts of General Manager in the exigency of service. It held that the committee’s finding that they had never been posted as General Managers was contrary to the corporation’s own stand.
The court also rejected the grounds relating to non-availability of vigilance clearance and Annual Performance Reports (APRs). It held that obtaining vigilance clearance and maintaining APRs are responsibilities of the employer and that the employees could not be blamed for their non-availability.
The court further noted that the post of General Manager was a selection post and that an eligible officer was not automatically entitled to promotion merely on the basis of seniority. However, it held that an eligible officer was entitled to have his or her case considered on merit, based on service records and vigilance reports.
In the present case, the court found that the committee had not even examined the petitioners’ vigilance reports and APRs before rejecting their claims, as these records were admittedly unavailable before it.
Holding that the committee’s decision was not sustainable in law, the court quashed the September 8, 2016 decision and ordered fresh consideration of the petitioners’ cases for promotion to General Manager based on their service records.
The petition, SWP No. 1964/2016, was accordingly allowed and disposed of.
