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 Jammu and Kashmir Government and the Director General of Police, quashing 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, the High Court restored Police Headquarters (PHQ) Order No. 2607 of 2021, dated August 26, 2021, which had rejected Mir’s claim for retrospective promotion. However, the court clarified that its decision 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 on operational grounds in 1998. He sought retrospective benefits from June 8 that year, contending that other police personnel had received similar benefits and that denying him the same treatment was discriminatory.
The High Court held that a recommendation for promotion, even if made by a competent authority, does not establish a vested right to promotion from the date of the recommendation unless such entitlement is supported by the applicable service rules, a specific order or a judicial direction.
The Bench observed that Mir had been promoted to Inspector with effect from September 29, 2006, following earlier litigation. The court found no specific direction in the earlier proceedings requiring the authorities to grant him promotion retrospectively from June 8, 1998.
The judgment also rejected Mir’s reliance on the case of Abdul Khalid Khan, another police officer who had been granted retrospective out-of-turn promotion. The court held that the principle of parity could not automatically entitle one employee to the same benefit as another, particularly in cases involving out-of-turn promotions, which must be assessed on their individual facts and circumstances.
The Bench noted that Khan had consistently pursued his claim for retrospective promotion and had repeatedly been recommended by the Inspector General of Police, Kashmir Zone, for the benefit with effect from February 13, 1999. In contrast, the court observed that Mir had not been recommended for retrospective effect to his promotion.
The court further noted that Mir’s claim had been rejected by the Director General of Police through an order dated March 29, 2010. He did not pursue the matter for nearly seven years, according to the judgment, and subsequently renewed his claim after Khan was granted retrospective benefits in 2016.
The Bench held that these differences were material and should have been examined by the Tribunal before granting relief. It found that the Tribunal had relied principally on the alleged similarity between the two officers’ cases without adequately considering the earlier rejection of Mir’s claim, the period of inaction and the absence of a recommendation for retrospective promotion.
Referring to Supreme Court judgments, including State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sanjay Shukla, decided on March 27, 2023, the High Court reiterated that parity cannot be claimed as a matter of right in cases involving out-of-turn promotions. It also examined the principles of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence, observing that a claimant’s conduct and the circumstances surrounding prolonged inaction are relevant when determining whether a claim can be revived.
The court concluded that neither the 1998 recommendation nor the benefit granted to another officer established an independent legal entitlement for Mir to retrospective promotion.
Accordingly, the Bench set aside the CAT’s judgment of June 24, 2022, in OA No. 1413/2021 and restored the DGP’s order dated August 26, 2021. It expressly preserved Mir’s promotion as Inspector from September 29, 2006.
Mir had initially approached the High Court in 2001, seeking promotion to Inspector, including from June 22, 2000, the date on which some of his junior batchmates were promoted. The court disposed of that petition on May 5, 2006, following which he was promoted through PHQ Order No. 3007 of 2006.
He subsequently sought retrospective effect to the promotion. After his representation was rejected in March 2010, he pursued further proceedings, including a petition before the Tribunal. In November 2020, the Tribunal directed the authorities to reconsider his claim in light of the High Court’s judgments in Khan’s case.
The authorities rejected the claim again in August 2021, prompting Mir to approach the Tribunal, which ruled in his favour in June 2022. The government and the DGP challenged that decision before the High Court through WP(C) No. 2059/2023.
The judgment was reserved on October 8 and pronounced and uploaded on October 15, 2026.
