'Similarly Placed Employees Must Get Similar Promotion': HC Orders UP Govt To Promote Group-C Worker

The court said if a candidate has the required educational qualification, he deserves to be promoted upon satisfying all other criteria.

The court further said that promotion is seen as a tool to ensure that no industrial unrest takes place amongst the workers in industry.

Source : Canva

The Allahabad High Court in a recent order held that employees falling in the same or similar cadre must be given the same promotional opportunity to advance their career in service. The court while dealing with a writ petition moved by an Uttar Pradesh government employee against rejection of his promotion to post of junior engineer in the Group-C category application, said that rules of promotion are to be construed liberally as promotional avenues are meant to avoid stagnation of employees and regular promotion not only boosts up the moral of workforce at lower level but otherwise also improves the total environment qua work culture in any establishment.

The high court said if a candidate has the required educational qualification, he deserves to be promoted upon satisfying all other criteria. The court added that it did not matter if such a criteria was fulfilled prior to entering the service or while employed in it.

The petitioner was denied promotion to the post of Junior Engineer as he was a storekeeper and not a clerk. His claim for promotion was rejected saying that the post of Storekeeper being not mentioned under the rules, Storekeeper cannot claim promotion.

The court however, found this approach irrational and said that if a clerk can be promoted as Junior Engineer for having a diploma in concerned trade, the denial of this opportunity to Storekeeper, just for he being not clerk is highly discriminatory. The court noted that the Storekeeper had the required educational qualification (to be promoted as Junior Engineer) before taking up the job of storekeeper. But, he was denied promotion despite having the education qualification and experience as he was not a clerk.

"Still further I do not find substance in the argument of Sri Mehrotra that the post of Storekeeper being not mentioned under the rules, Storekeeper cannot claim promotion. This has nothing to do with the object sought to be achieved and has no rationale. If a clerk can be promoted as Junior Engineer for having a diploma in concerned trade, the denial of this opportunity to Storekeeper, just for he being not clerk is highly discriminatory," the court said.

The court further said that promotion is seen as a tool to ensure that no industrial unrest takes place amongst the workers in industry.

"So based on the principle of Article 14 of the Constitution and on sound principle of service jurisprudence governing the healthy employer and employee relationship, it is a must that employees falling in the same or similar cadre are given further same opportunity to advance their career in service," the order read.

The court found that the petitioner was appointed against the substantive vacancy and was also having diploma in concerned trade and also requisite period of service in group ‘C’ cadre and so definitely he deserved to be considered for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Mechanical).

The court directed the concerned authorities in Uttar Pradesh government to pass appropriate order regarding promotion of the petitioner within 5% quota for promotion on the post of Junior Engineer (Mechanical) and give notional benefits including seniority in the event any of his juniors was promoted, with effect from the date of promotion of such junior person.