Service Law : Court Directs Promotion to Employee Denied by His Employer

Service Law : Court Directs Promotion to Employee Denied by His Employer

In a recent judgment, the plea for promotion which was denied by the employer was allowed and directions were issued to the Government employee to grant promotion to the petitioner-employee. 

In this case, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Havildar in the year 2008, who was eligible in the year 2019 when the DPC was held. It was also admitted position that one junior Havildar has been promoted by superseding the petitioner in the year 2019. Now the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Warrant Officer (GD) in the year 2022 from the date of DPC.

It was observed that non-consideration of the petitioner in the year 2019, was on the basis of the entries in the ACR of the petitioner. The entries in the ACRs, which was the basis for non-consideration of the petitioner’s case for promotion, was not communicated to the petitioner.

The law was explained regarding the communication of the entry in the ACR which has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. A profitable reference may be made to the case of the Dev Dutt – vs Union of India & Others [2008] GCtR 6492 (SC). It is no longer res integra that every entry adverse or not in the ACR should be communicated to the Officer/Officials by the authority concerned. 

In this case it was admitted position that the remarks/entries in the ACR of the petitioner, which was the basis for non-consideration in the year 2019, was not communicated to the petitioner. Since the non-consideration of the promotion of the petitioner in the 2019 while promoting the junior is clearly based on the remarks/entries in the ACR for the year 2015-16 and certain entries/remarks in the ACR having not been communicated, Court was of the view that the non-consideration on the basis of uncommunicated remarks/entries in the ACR, has caused prejudice to the petitioner as it is settled position that even if entries/remarks in the ACR is not adverse, the same requires to be communicated.

Having considered these aspects that non-communication of the remarks/entries of the ACR to the petitioner had an adverse effect as the respondent authorities have not considered the petitioner for promotion to the post of Warrant Officer (GD) purely on the basis of entries/remarks made in the ACR of the petitioner for the year 2015-16, the action of denying promotion to the petitioner was found contrary to law and directions were issued to grant promotion with effect from the year 2019. 

For further details refer Shambhu Dutt v. Union of India [2025] GCtR 1685 (Gauhati).