2026:JHHC:26301 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 6505 of 2024 …… Arvind Kumar Srivastava, aged about 70 years, son of Surendra Prasad Srivastava, resident of Flat No.02-E, Subh Gauri Enclave, Budha Vihar, St. Nirankari Satsang Bhawan, Opposite Ashok Nagar, Road No.4, P.O.-Argora, P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand). …. Petitioner(s) -VERSUS- 1. State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Road Construction Department, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. …..Respondent (s) …… CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Adv For the Respondent (s) : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III Mr. Binin Chandra, A.C. to AAG-III …… C.A.V. ON 04/08/2026 PRONOUNCED ON: 31/08/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner prays for the following relief(s): - (i) For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s), specifically a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing and setting aside of the order as contained in Memo No. प० Ǔन० ͪव०-01-नु-03-20224111(S), dated 25.08.2023 (Annexure-10), passed by respondent no.2, whereby, the claim of the petitioner to grant notional promotion from Assistant Engineer to Executive Engineer has been denied and rejected on the mis-conceived grounds; (ii) For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s), specifically a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to grant him notional promotion from the post of Assistant Engineer to the post of Executive Engineer in the department of Road Construction, on notional basis, w.e.f. 23.11.2009, without any monetary benefit. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Junior Engineer on 09.12.1982, in the Road Construction Department. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on 11.12.1987. 2026:JHHC:26301 2 The petitioner is claiming promotion to the post of Executive Engineer, w.e.f. 23.11.2009, since when the juniors have been granted promotion. The petitioner has superannuated from services on 31.08.2014, as Assistant Engineer. The petitioner had approached this Court in the earlier round of litigation, being W.P.(S) No.4708 of 2022, with the same prayer, and the matter was remanded to the respondents for taking decision, vide Court’s order dated 09.11.2022. Pursuant thereto, the respondents have taken decision, by passing the departmental order, dated 25.08.2023, and have denied the claim made by the petitioner, and therefore, that order has been put to challenge in this writ application by the petitioner. 4. The claim of the petitioner, for grant of promotion w.e.f. 23.11.2009, is based on the fact that juniors to him have been granted promotion on that date to the post of Executive Engineer, and hence, the petitioner is also entitled for the same. These junior candidates, namely Suresh Kumar, Ramashish Rai, Nishikant Prasad and Narendra Prasad Sharma, were direct recruit Assistant Engineers, and were granted promotion to the post of Executive Engineer on 23.11.2009. 5. The above-named persons, appeared at seniority position no.64, 65, 66 and 67, respectively in the seniority list of Assistant Engineer (2009), along with the petitioner appearing at seniority position no.193. 6. The seniority list, however was amended on 11.01.2016 (Annexure-05), whereby the petitioner’s seniority position was improved and placed at Seniority Position No.63- Kha, over and above, the aforementioned candidates. Accordingly, in the basic grade-Assistant Engineer, the seniority position of the petitioner was improved and he was 2026:JHHC:26301 3 now placed at higher place, compared to the above-named Suresh Kumar (64), Ramashish Rai (65), Nishikant Prasad (66) and Narendra Prasad Sharma (67), respectively. 7. The petitioner on the basis of the above amendment in the seniority position, to the original seniority list of the year 2009, is praying that he should have been granted promotion to the post of Executive Engineer, w.e.f. the same date from when the above-mentioned persons have been granted promotion, i.e. 23.11.2009 (Annexure-03). The above- mentioned persons are juniors, as per the amendment in the seniority list that relates back to the original seniority of the year 2009. 8. The petitioner does not demand for any financial benefits, as he has already received the benefit of ACP/ MACP, of the grade-pay of Executive Engineer. He only prays for notional promotion to Executive Engineer, to the effect of grant of nomenclature of the post. 9. The impugned order dated 25.08.2023 (Annexure-09) says that yes, the promotion should be granted w.e.f. the date when the juniors have been granted promotion. However, in the same breadth, it has also been said in the next paragraph of that order that the posting is to be granted from the date of joining, which is not possible in the present case, as the petitioner has superannuated. The retrospective posting has been argued against, on showing the relevance of Rule-74 of the Jharkhand Finance Rules and Rule-58-ka of the Jharkhand Service Code. Therefore, the claim has been denied. 10. The point of delay has been separately argued by the Ld. State Counsel, though not mentioned in the impugned order. However, the record reveals that the matter was remanded in the earlier round of litigation on a specific point 2026:JHHC:26301 4 to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion if his juniors have been promoted and to pass a reasoned order on that issue. Now, while passing the reasoned order dated 25.08.2023, no such ground was indicated by the Respondent Authorities, however, the Respondent Counsel has chosen to argue beyond the reasons referred to in Impugned Order. 11. Following the principles laid down in the case of M.S.Gill vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, reported in 1978 (1) SCC 405, this Court is not inclined to go beyond the reasons, as not stated in the Impugned Order. 12. This Court can also not shut its eyes with the fact that in the earlier round of litigation, the matter was remanded by this Court vide its order dated 09.11.2022 and the Impugned Order is passed on specific remand by this Court. 13. Moreover, the facts suggest that even if the petitioner is granted notional promotion w.e.f. the date of juniors, to the post of Executive Engineer, no one will be adversely affected. This status and factual position could not be disputed by the Respondents. Under such circumstances, it is now relevant to make reference of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court (Five Juges bench), passed in the case of Ramchandra Shankar, Deoghar and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported in (1974) 1 SCC 317, wherein, the Hon’ble Court has referred to the judgment passed in Tilokchand Vs. H. B. Munshi [(1969) 1 SCC 110] wherein it has been held at para-10, as under:- “… We were also told by the learned counsel for the petitioners, and that was not controverted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State Government, that even if the petition were allowed and the reliefs claimed by the petitioners granted to them, that would not result in the reversion of any Deputy Collector or officiating Deputy Collector to the post of Mamlatdar/Tehsildar; the only effect would be merely to disturb their inter-se seniority as officiating Deputy Collectors or as 2026:JHHC:26301 5 Deputy Collectors. Moreover, it may be noticed that the claim for enforcement of the fundamental right of equal opportunity under Article 16 is itself a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 32 and this Court which has been assigned the role of a sentinel on the qui vive for protection of the fundamental rights cannot easily allow itself to be persuaded to refuse relief solely on the jejune ground of laches, delay or the like.” Emphasis Supplied 14. The above-mentioned position was reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Royal Orchid Hotel Limited and Anr. Vs. G. Jaya Rama Reddy and Ors., reported in (2011) 10 SCC 608, (Refer: Para-28). 15. Having regard to the above settled position of law laid down the Hon’ble Apex Court, it can be safely inferred that in the present case, the claim of the petitioner is directly connected with the arbitrary action of the respondents, which hits directly at the root of Article-14 of the Constitution of India and at the same time, it violates the guarantee given to the petitioner under Article-16 of the Constitution of India that everyone will be treated equally in the matter of public employment, which essentially includes a fair promotional process and other service conditions. Even otherwise, no private person, including the State respondent will be adversely affected. Viewed thus, it cannot be accepted that the delay caused is fatal to the case of the petitioner. 16. Now this Court proceeds to the next issue, that is substantially connected with the Petitioner’s claim and forms part of reasoning in the Impugned Order. 17. The respondents have contested the grant of relief on the ground that the retrospective posting is not permissible, due to Rule-74 of the Jharkhand Finance Rules and Rule-58- ka of the Jharkhand Service Code. 18. This issue has also been settled in the earlier judgments, long back in the case of Dr. Paras Nath Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 1990 (2) PLJR 248, wherein it has 2026:JHHC:26301 6 been held at para-21 that any grant of pay and allowance to the employee on notional promotion granted to him cannot be objected to. A notional promotion has to be as if, for service benefits, he had been given due promotion. A person who is entitled to promotion and is not promoted, can always invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under Article-226 of the Constitution for a mandamus to be issued to the State- Employer to consider his case for such promotion. 19. As far as the provision of Rule-74 is concerned; again, the petitioner is not claiming any financial benefit out of the promotion being sought for. Therefore, the rejection of the case of the petitioner on these grounds is absolutely untenable, in view of the judgment as has been cited above. 20. Further, in the case of K. V. Jankiramam, reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109, one of the issues that was dealt with was to the same effect, in regards to fundamental rule-17(1) which is para-materia to the above-mentioned rules. It was argued there that the principle of ‘no work no pay’ shall be applicable and therefore, the retrospective promotion is not applicable. The Hon’ble Court held that the present is not a case of retrospective promotion, rather it is a case where the employee has not been considered for promotion from due date, and therefore, is directed to consider his case of promotion from due date. Here, it is due to the Respondent’s fault that the Petitioner has suffered, of which premium cannot be sought by the authorities. The delay of 6 years in amending the seniority list and repositioning the Petitioner at the place of seniority, compared to juniors is not attributable to the Petitioner. 21. In view of the above settled position of law, the facts of the present case are better placed as because the petitioner is not claiming any financial benefits; rather he is making a 2026:JHHC:26301 7 claim for substantive post, notionally, without any financial remuneration attached to it. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner is sustainable and cannot be denied on the ground of Rule-74 of the Jharkhand Finance Rules and Rule-58-ka of the Jharkhand Service Code. 22. In addition to the above, the Respondents themselves have stated in the impugned order that an employee is entitled to, even a retrospective promotion w.e.f. the date when the juniors have been promoted. 23. The claim of the petitioner also qualifies the test of entitlement, w.e.f. the date when juniors have been granted promotion, as has been held in the case of R. K. Sethi & Anr. Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Commission, (1997) 10 SCC 616. In this case, it is held at para-12, as under:- “12. Once it is held that Telex Operators have been rightly placed en bloc below regular employees in AG-II cadre as a result of the merger of the said cadre in the cadre of AG-II on 25-4-1980, regular employees in AG-II cadre who were senior to the Telex Operators could rightly feel aggrieved if they were denied promotion while their juniors were promoted as AG-I. The “next below rule” in service jurisprudence seeks to ensure that if a junior employee is given promotion without considering his senior then the senior employee can claim the right to be considered for such promotion with effect from the date on which the junior was so promoted……” Emphasis Supplied. 24. Having regard to the above factual scenario coupled with the settled position of law, it is evident that the petitioner is entitled for promotion w.e.f. the date when the juniors have been granted promotion. At the same time, the promotion w.e.f. 2009, does not encroach upon the provisions of Rule-74 of the Jharkhand Finance Rules and Rule-58-ka of the Jharkhand Service Code. 25. As a result, the impugned order dated 25.08.2023 is quashed and set aside and the Respondents are directed to grant promotion to the petitioner from the post of Assistant 2026:JHHC:26301 8 Engineer to the post of Executive Engineer w.e.f. 23.11.2009; i.e. the date when the juniors to the petitioner have been promoted, only for notional purposes, without any financial benefit, or any enhancement in pension, or any other benefit that may be related to such promotion. 26. It is reiterated that the benefit of promotion shall be only notional and will be limited to the grant of substantive allocation of the post of Executive Engineer as promotion for the sake of nomenclature. Necessary order be issued by the concerned Respondent within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 27. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J) Dated:31 /08/2026 Amardeep/ A.F.R. Uploaded on 3.9.2026