top of page

Merely because an employee is given a temporary charge of a particular post, it cannot be taken as a


CORAM: Two judge bench comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice M.R. Shah

The facts of the case that lead to the appeal before this court is that the respondent herein was appointed as an ‘electrician’ in the appellant institution. The respondent who was entitled to promotion was due. He demanded promotion from the Secretary of appellant. Later he was transferred to HRD however his designation remained the same. He prayed promotion to the post of Section Officer under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme (TBPS) which was rejected. He filed writ petition before a Single Judge Bench of the HC of Delhi demanding higher scale, promotion which was dismissed. Later he appealed the Division Bench of the court which allowed the appeal and quashed the judgment of the Single Judge of HC. It directed the appellant to grant the respondent the pay scale and designation of Section Officer. Aggrieved by this order the appellant institution preferred the present appeal.

The counsel for the appellant submitted that HC has failed to consider that the respondent was not entitled to promotion in view of their agreement. Also the respondent was authorized only for higher scale which was paid already. Just because he was directed to look after the work of sectional officer doesn’t promote him to that post. As he was an Electrician he was not entitled to time-bound promotion.

The counsel for the respondent argued that the order of the President was not communicated to the respondent and thus it never binds him. As the respondent was appointed as the Sectional Officer, he cannot continue as an Electrician. Also the respondent was given the pay scale of Assistant and thus he was entitled to promotion.

Hearing both the counsels the court observed that merely because an employee is given a temporary charge to do a particular work of a particular post, it cannot be said that in fact he has been promoted to the said post. An employee is entitled to promotion only under the TBPS. Here the T&C of the service of the employees were governed by the agreement between ICAI and its Employees’ Association. The respondent was governed by Clause 1(v) of the settlement. However the HC has not properly considered the subsequent settlement. Accordingly the employees like the respondent are not entitled to any promotion and he was already given the pay-scale of an Assistant.

The Court held that the High Court has committed a grave error in directing the appellant to promote the respondent to the post of Section Officer under the TBPS. However, at the same time, the respondent shall be entitled to the same salary of Section Officer for the period during which he worked as a Section Officer either on officiating basis and/or he was given the charge, if not paid so far.

Thus the court held that the order of the Divisional Bench of HC directing the appellant to promote the respondent to the post of Sectional Officer cannot be sustained and it is deserved to be quashed.




bottom of page