Page No.# 1/19 GAHC010164502023 2026:GAU-AS:12036 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4339/2023 SABITA BHARALI W/O- JITENDRA BHARALI, R/O- WEST JYOTI NAGAR, PIOLIPHUKAN ROAD, HOUSE NO. 4, P.O.- BAMUNIMAIDAM, DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M) (ASSAM), PIN- 781021. VERSUS ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HRA), APDCL, BIJULEE BHAWAN, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI- 781001. 2:MANAGING DIRECTOR APDCL BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI- 781001. 3:DEPUTY PERSONNEL MANAGER O/O THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (D AND S) APDCL (LRA) BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI- 781001. 4:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (F AND A) APDCL BIJULEE BHAWAN Page No.# 2/19 PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI- 781001 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H DAS, D BARUAH,MR. B C DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL, Linked Case : WP(C)/4604/2023 HIRANYA KUMAR DAS S/O- LATE SADA NANDA DAS R/O- VILLAGE- PUB-PALANGDI HATI P.O. AND P.S. BARPETA DISTRICT- BARPETA (ASSAM) VERSUS ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HRA) APDCL BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI- 781001 2:DEPUTY PERSONNEL MANAGER O/O THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (D AND S) APDCL (LRA) BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI- 781001 3:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HRA) APDCL BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI- 781001 ------------ Advocate for : MR H DAS Advocate for : SC APDCL appearing for ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED AND 2 ORS Page No.# 3/19 Linked Case : WP(C)/4317/2023 DIPAK BORTHAKUR S/O- LATE RUDRA KANTA BORTHAKUR R/O- VILL.- DEUEIGAON P.O. HALOWAGAON PURANI GUDAM DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782141. VERSUS ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HRA) APDCL BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTANBAZAR GUWAHATI-781001. 2:DEPUTY PERSONNEL MANAGER O/O- THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (D AND S) APDCL (LRA) BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTANBAZAR GUWAHATI-781001. 3:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (F AND A) APDCL BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTANBAZAR GUWAHATI-781001. 4:THE GENERAL MANAGER UPPER ASSAM T AND T ZONE A.E.G.C.L. AMLAPATTY P.O. AND DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782003. Page No.# 4/19 5:THE GENERAL MANAGER CENTRAL ASSAM T AND T ZONE A.E.G.C.L. SAMAGURI (220 KV/132 KV S/S A.E.G.C.L. SAMAGURI CAMPUS) PIN- 782140. ------------ Advocate for : MR H DAS Advocate for : SC APDCL appearing for ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED AND 4 ORS BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 19.08.2026 Heard Mr. H Das, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners in the above noted Writ Petitions. Also heard Mr. S P Sarma, Learned Standing Counsel, APDCL and Ms. K Phukan, Learned Standing Counsel, AEGCL appearing for their respective Respondents, in the above noted Writ Petitions. 2. In the above noted Writ Petitions, the Petitioner have assailed a communication dated 12.07.2022, issued by the Chief General Manager, HRA, APDCL, Bijulee Bhawan, Guwahati, rejecting their claim for promotion under the Career Progression Scheme for Superintendent (H.o.D) cadre, on the ground that they had already superannuated from their services. Page No.# 5/19 3. The challenge in the above noted writ Petitions, being the same, and the relief prayed for also being one and the same, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the above noted writ Petitions were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. 4. The facts requisite for the purpose of adjudication of the issues arising in the above noted writ petitions, are noticed, hereinbelow. (i) WP(C)/4317/2023 The Petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, was initially appointed as a Lower Division Assistant (HoD) on 15.07.1988, for a period of 87 (Eighty Seven) days. The said engagement of the Petitioner was continued with and he was subsequently, regularized as a Lower Division Assistant (LDA), vide order dated 20.03.1995 w.e.f 16.07.1988. The Petitioner was thereafter, promoted as Upper Division Assistant (UDA) on 20.06.2005 and as a Superintendent on 20.03.2017. The Petitioner has projected that the next promotional avenue for the incumbents in the cadre of Superintendent to are the posts figuring in the cadre of Junior Administrative Officer (JAO). It is projected by the Petitioner that he being in the cadre of Head of Department (HoD) of the Page No.# 6/19 Organization, considering his seniority position and also the fact that he had the requisite residency in the cadre of Superintendent, he was to be promoted to the cadre of Junior Administrative Officer (JAO), on completion of 4 (four) years of service as Superintendent (HoD). It is projected that the Petitioner retired from his services, on reaching the age of superannuation, w.e.f 30.11.2020, without his case being considered for promotion to the cadre of Junior Administrative Officer (JAO). The Petitioner has referred to the case of the similarly situated persons, who were promoted to the cadre of Junior Administrative Officer (JAO) from the cadre of Superintendent, during their service career and has contented a discrimination to have been meted out to him in not considering his case for such promotion during his service tenure, although vacancies for the purpose was available. Accordingly, the Petitioner has prayed for a consideration of his case, w.e.f the date his juniors were so promoted to the cadre of Junior Administrative Officer (JAO), along with all consequential benefits, thereof. (ii) WP(C)/4339/2023 The Petitioner in the present Writ Petition has projected that she Page No.# 7/19 was initially appointed as a Typist in the erstwhile Assam State Electricity Board (ASEB) on 23.06.1981. The Petitioner, thereafter, was promoted to the cadre of Lower Division Assistant (LDA) and Upper Division Assistant (UDA) on 02.06.1987 and 28.04.2001, respectively. The Petitioner, having acquired the requisite eligibility criteria, she was promoted to the post of Superintendent on 30.04.2016. It is projected that the Petitioner retired from his services, on reaching the age of superannuation, w.e.f 30.04.2020, without her case being considered for promotion to the cadre of Junior Administrative Officer (JAO). The Petitioner has referred to the case of the similarly situated persons, who were promoted to the cadre of Junior Administrative Officer (JAO) from the cadre of Superintendent, during their service career and has contented a discrimination to have been meted out to her in not considering her case for such promotion during her service tenure, although vacancies for the purpose was available. Accordingly, the Petitioner has prayed for a consideration of her case, w.e.f the date her juniors were so promoted to the cadre of Junior Administrative Officer (JAO), along with all consequential benefits, thereof. (iii) WP(C)/4604/2023 Page No.# 8/19 The Petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, has projected that he was initially recruited as a Typist on 05.01.1983. Thereafter, the Petitioner was promoted to the post of Lower Division Assistant (LDA) and Upper Division Assistant (UDA) on 19.02.1990 and 18.08.2006 respectively. The Petitioner, on attaining the requisite eligibility criteria, was promoted to the post of Superintendent on 29.03.2017. It is projected that the Petitioner retired from his services, on reaching the age of superannuation, w.e.f 31.01.2021, without his case being considered for promotion to the cadre of Junior Administrative Officer (JAO). The Petitioner has referred to the case of the similarly situated persons, who were promoted to the cadre of Junior Administrative Officer (JAO) from the cadre of Superintendent, during their service career and has contented a discrimination to have been meted out to him in not considering his case for such promotion during his service tenure, although vacancies for the purpose was available. Accordingly, the Petitioner has prayed for a consideration of his case, w.e.f the date his juniors were so promoted to the cadre of Junior Administrative Officer (JAO), along with all consequential benefits, thereof. 5. Mr. H Das, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners in the above Page No.# 9/19 noted Writ Petitions, after reiterating the facts, noticed hereinabove, has submitted that the Petitioners had all acquired the requisite eligibility criteria, for being promoted to the cadre of Junior Administrative Officer (JAO). However, the consideration required to be made in their respective cases, for such promotion was denied to them and accordingly, the fundamental rights vested in each of the Petitioners in the above noted Writ Petitions, came to be violated. 6. Mr. H Das, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners were pursuing the matter with the Respondent authorities for consideration of their respective cases, for promotion to cadre of Junior Administrative Officer (JAO), however, the Respondent authorities had not taken up cases of the Petitioners and the Petitioners were forced to retire from their respective services, while working in the post of Superintendent. He submits that the promotion of the Petitioners to the cadre of Junior Administrative Officer (JAO), having not been granted to them, the Petitioners were forced to receive their retiral benefits at a lower stage than that they were legally entitled, had their promotion to the cadre of Junior Administrative Officer (JAO) been so effected. 7. Mr. H Das, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner by referring to the communication dated 12.07.2022, as issued to the Petitioners, Page No.# 10/19 herein, has submitted that the Petitioners having acquired the requisite eligibility for being promoted to the cadre of Junior Administrative Officer (JAO), during their respective service tenure, merely on account of the fact that the Petitioners had superannuated from their services, would not disentitle them for being considered for such promotion w.e.f a date when they were continuing in their respective services. Mr. H Das, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that persons senior to the Petitioners as well as persons junior to the Petitioners, were considered for such promotion to the cadre of Junior Administrative Officer (JAO), however, it is only the Petitioners in the above noted writ petitions, who were denied such consideration. 8. In the above premises, Mr. H Das, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that appropriate directions is called upon to be issued to the Respondent authorities for consideration of the case of the Petitioners in terms of the policy in place for promotion to the cadre of Junior Administrative Officer (JAO) and to effect promotion, in respect of the Petitioners in the above noted Writ Petitions, to the cadre of Junior Administrative Officer (JAO), w.e.f a date, prior to the date of superannuation from service, with all consequential benefits, including revision of their pension and pensionary benefits. 9. Per contra, Mr. S P Sarma, Learned Standing Counsel, APDCL, Page No.# 11/19 by referring to the affidavit filed in the matter by the APDCL authorities has submitted that when the Petitioners had submitted representations praying for promotion to the cadre of Junior Administrative Officer (JAO), the H.o.D cadre did not have any service rules/promotion criteria. It is submitted that all of the Petitioners have availed 3 (three) or more promotions in their respective service careers. The formulation of guidelines/procedure for promotion of the employees working in the HoD cadre was subsequently done. However, the Committee for rationalization of service conditions and service rules, had not recommended for promotion of employees, belonging to the HoD cadre beyond the post of Superintendent. Mr. S P Sarma, Learned Standing Counsel, APDCL, further submits that the Petitioners having already superannuated from their services, it would not be permissible at this juncture to consider their cases for promotion to the cadre of Junior Administrative Officer (JAO). It is further submitted that any promotion that was effected to the cadre of Junior Administrative Officer (JAO), was so effected after the superannuation of the Petitioners, herein, with prospective effect. Accordingly, he submits that the claims made by the petitioners in the above noted Writ Petitions, would not mandate an acceptance from this Court. 10. I have heard the Learned counsel for the Parties and perused Page No.# 12/19 the materials available on record. 11. The facts, as noticed, hereinabove, are not disputed. 12. It is an admitted position that the above noted Writ Petitions were instituted by the Petitioners, herein, after they had superannuated from their services and have prayed for consideration of their cases for promotion to the cadre of Junior Administrative Officer (JAO). 13. Before proceeding to consider the grievances raised by the Petitioners in the present Writ petitions, this Court would consider as to whether the Petitioners, herein, are entitled for a direction for consideration of their cases for promotion to the cadre of Junior Administrative Officer (JAO), after they had all superannuated from their services. 14. It is a settled position of law that after retirement, the claim for a retrospective promotion effective with effect from the date when the employee was in service is not permissible, inasmuch as, the employee concerned on such promotion being effected in his/her respect would not be in a position to assume the charge of the promotional post. The said aspect of the matter was clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Government West Bengal and Others Vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi and Others, reported in (2024) SCC Online SC 3512. Page No.# 13/19 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its decision in the case of Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra), in connection with the issue arising in the present proceedings, had drawn the following conclusions; “19. It is a well settled principle that promotion becomes effective from the date it is granted, rather than from the date a vacancy arises or the post is created. While the Courts have recognized the right to be considered for promotion as not only a statutory right but also a fundamental right, there is no fundamental right to the promotion itself. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to a recent decision of this Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board v. Dharamdeo Das, wherein it was observed as follows: "18. It is no longer res integra that a promotion is effective from the date it is granted and not from the date when a vacancy occurs on the subject post or when the post itself is created. No doubt, a right to be considered for promotion has been treated by courts not just as a statutory right but as a fundamental right, at the same time, there is no fundamental right to promotion itself. In this context, we may profitably cite a recent decision in Ajay Kumar Shukla v. Arvind Rai where, citing earlier precedents in Director, Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty and Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, a three- Judge Bench observed thus: 41. This Court, time and again, has laid emphasis on right to be considered for promotion to be a fundamental right, as was held by K. Ramaswamy, J., in Director, Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty in para 4 of the report which is reproduced Page No.# 14/19 below: '4....... There is no fundamental right to promotion, but an employee has only right to be considered for promotion, when it arises, in accordance with relevant rules. From this perspective in our view the conclusion of the High Court that the gradation list prepared by the corporation is in violation of the right of respondent-writ petitioner to equality enshrined under Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution, and the respondent-writ petitioner was unjustly denied of the same is obviously unjustified.' 42. A Constitution Bench in Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, laying emphasis on Article 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India held that if a person who satisfies the eligibility and the criteria for promotion but still is not considered for promotion, then there will be clear violation of his/her's fundamental right. Jagannadha Rao, J. speaking for himself and Anand, C.J., Venkataswami, Pattanaik, Kurdukar, JJ., observed the same as follows in paras 22 and 27: 'Articles 14 and 16(1): is right to be considered for promotion a fundamental right 22. Article 14 and Article 16(1) are closely connected. They deal with individual rights of the person. Article 14 demands that the 'State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws'. Article 16(1) issues a positive command that: 'there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in Page No.# 15/19 matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State'. It has been held repeatedly by this Court that clause (1) of Article 16 is a facet of Article 14 and that it takes its roots from Article 14. The said clause particularises the generality in Article 14 and identifies, in a constitutional sense "equality of opportunity" in matters of employment and appointment to any office under the State. The word "employment" being wider, there is no dispute that it takes within its fold, the aspect of promotions to posts above the stage of initial level of recruitment. Article 16 (1) provides to every employee otherwise eligible for promotion or who comes within the zone of consideration, a fundamental right to be "considered" for promotion. Equal opportunity here means the right to be "considered" for promotion. If a person satisfies the eligibility and zone criteria but is not considered for promotion, then there will be a clear infraction of his fundamental right to be "considered" for promotion, which is his personal right. "Promotion" based on equal opportunity and seniority attached to such promotion are facets of fundamental right under Article 16(1). * * * 27. In our opinion, the above view expressed in Ashok Kumar Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.12, and followed in Jagdish Lal [Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana, and other cases, if it is intended to lay down that the right guaranteed to employees for being "considered" for promotion according to relevant rules of recruitment by promotion (i.e. whether on the basis of seniority or merit) is only a statutory right and not a fundamental right, we cannot accept the proposition. We have already stated Page No.# 16/19 earlier that the right to equal opportunity in the matter of promotion in the sense of a right to be "considered" for promotion is indeed a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16(1) and this has never been doubted in any other case before Ashok Kumar Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.], right from 1950.' "20. In State of Bihar v. Akhouri Sachindra Nath¹s, it was held that retrospective seniority cannot be given to an employee from a date when he was not even borne in the cadre, nor can seniority be given with retrospective effect as that might adversely affect others. The same view was reiterated in Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India, where it was held that when a quota is provided for, then the seniority of the employee would be reckoned from the date when the vacancy arises in the quota and not from any anterior date of promotion or subsequent date of confirmation. The said view was restated in Uttaranchal Forest Rangers' Assn. (Direct Recruit) v.State of U.P., in the following words: '37. We are also of the view that no retrospective promotion or seniority can be granted from a date when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre so as to adversely affect the direct recruits appointed validly in the meantime, as decided by this Court in Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India held that when promotion is outside the quota, seniority would be reckoned from the date of the vacancy within the quota rendering the previous service fortuitous. The previous promotion would be regular only from the date of the vacancy within the quota and seniority shall be counted from that date and not from the date of his earlier promotion or subsequent confirmation. In order to do justice to Page No.# 17/19 the promotes, it would not be proper to do injustice to the direct recruits…… 38. This Court has consistently held that no retrospective promotion can be granted nor can any seniority be given on retrospective basis from a date when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre particularly when this would adversely affect the direct recruits who have been appointed validity in the meantime." 20. In the instant case, it is evident that while respondent No. 1 was recommended for promotion before his retirement, he could not assume the duties of the Chief Scientific Officer. Rule 54(1) (a) of the West Bengal Service Rules, clearly stipulates that an employee must assume the responsibilities of a higher post to draw the corresponding pay, thus, preventing posthumous or retrospective promotions in the absence of an enabling provision.” 16. Applying the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Amal Satpathy (Supra) to the facts of the present cases, this Court is of the considered view that the Petitioners, in pursuance to their superannuation from their services, would not be entitled for a direction for consideration of their respective cases, for a retrospective promotion to the cadre of Junior Administrative Officer (JAO). Further, the Petitioners have also not brought on record any material to Page No.# 18/19 demonstrate that such promotion in their respective cases, in terms of the procedure in vogue in the Organization would be also permissible to be so directed to be effected with retrospective effect. 17. Accordingly, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra), the claim of the petitioners for a retrospective promotion in their cases would also not be mandated to be accepted. 18. In view of the conclusions reached by this Court that the Petitioners herein, are not eligible for a direction for having their respective cases considered for promotion with retrospective effect to the cadre of Junior Administrative Officer (JAO) after they had superannuated from their services, the other issues raised by the Petitioners, in the above noted writ Petitions, are not being examined by this Court. 19. For the forgoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the claims made by the petitioners, in the above noted writ petitions, would not mandate an acceptance and accordingly, the same stand rejected. 20. Accordingly, the above noted writ petitions are held to be devoid of any merit and consequently, the same stand dismissed. Page No.# 19/19 However, there would be no order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant