SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has set aside a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order granting retrospective out-of-turn promotion to a police officer from June 8, 1998, holding that a recommendation for promotion does not, by itself, create an enforceable right to retrospective benefits.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Dr Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal allowed a writ petition filed by the Union Territory administration and the Director General of Police, Jammu and Kashmir, challenging the Tribunal’s June 24, 2022, judgment in favour of Nissar Ahmad Mir, a resident of Shalimar, Srinagar.
In its judgment pronounced on October 15, 2026, the High Court restored the police headquarters order dated August 26, 2021, which had rejected Mir’s claim for retrospective promotion. However, it clarified that the ruling would not affect his promotion to the rank of Inspector with effect from September 29, 2006.
The dispute arose from Mir’s claim that he had been recommended for out-of-turn promotion in 1998 in recognition of his operational performance and the risks he had undertaken while combating militancy.
According to the judgment, Mir had approached the High Court in 2001, seeking promotion to the rank of Inspector, including from June 22, 2000, the date on which some of his junior batchmates were promoted out of turn.
The High Court disposed of that petition on May 5, 2006, following which Mir was promoted as Inspector with immediate effect through a police headquarters order dated September 29, 2006.
He subsequently sought retrospective effect for his promotion. His representation was rejected by the Director General of Police through an order dated March 29, 2010.
Mir challenged the rejection and pursued further legal proceedings. His claim was later reconsidered following directions from the CAT, which asked the authorities to examine it in light of the judgment concerning another police officer, Abdul Khalid Khan.
However, the police headquarters rejected his claim again on August 26, 2021, finding material differences between the two cases. The CAT subsequently quashed that order and directed the authorities to grant Mir retrospective promotion notionally from June 8, 1998, and monetary benefits from September 29, 2006.
The UT administration and the DGP challenged the Tribunal’s decision before the High Court.
Recommendation does not create a vested right
The High Court observed that a recommendation for out-of-turn promotion must be distinguished from the actual grant of promotion. It held that even a recommendation by the competent authority does not automatically confer an enforceable right to promotion from the date it was made.
The Bench noted that neither the High Court’s order of May 5, 2006, nor the subsequent promotion order expressly granted Mir retrospective promotion from June 8, 1998.
It said that, in the absence of a specific judicial direction or an independent legal entitlement under the applicable service rules, the recommendation could not be treated as sufficient grounds for claiming retrospective benefits.
The court also referred to a Supreme Court judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sanjay Shukla, decided on March 27, 2023, which held that parity cannot be claimed as a matter of right in cases involving out-of-turn promotions because the facts and circumstances differ from one officer to another.
Court finds cases materially different
The High Court held that Mir could not claim the same benefit merely because retrospective promotion had been granted to Abdul Khalid Khan.
It noted that Khalid had consistently pursued his claim for retrospective promotion and had repeatedly been recommended by the Inspector General of Police, Kashmir Zone, for promotion with effect from February 13, 1999.
In contrast, the judgment said, Mir had not been recommended for retrospective promotion, although he had been recommended for out-of-turn promotion. The court also noted that Mir had sought different reliefs at different stages of his litigation.
The Bench further observed that Mir’s claim had been rejected on merits in March 2010, but he did not pursue the matter for nearly seven years before seeking similar benefits after Khalid was granted retrospective promotion.
It held that the CAT had failed to adequately examine these distinctions, the earlier rejection of Mir’s claim and the delay in pursuing the matter. The Tribunal had, instead, relied on the principle of parity without establishing that the two officers were similarly situated in all material respects.
The court also discussed the legal principles of waiver and acquiescence, observing that a claimant’s conduct and prolonged inaction following an adverse decision could be relevant while assessing a subsequent attempt to revive the claim.
Tribunal order set aside
Allowing the writ petition, the High Court set aside the CAT’s judgment dated June 24, 2022, and restored the DGP’s order dated August 26, 2021, rejecting Mir’s claim for retrospective out-of-turn promotion.
The court expressly clarified that its decision would not disturb Mir’s promotion as Inspector with effect from September 29, 2006, granted under the police headquarters order issued on that date.
