Rajasthan HC Sets Aside Employee's Demotion From Post Held For 17 Years, Says Decision Rejecting Peer's Plea Seeking Same Relief Not In Rem

The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court set aside a 14-year-old order demoting a government employee from a post on which he served for 17 years, wherein the demotion was directed based on a judgment in a plea by a similarly situated counterpart who had also sought promotion but was denied noting that he wasn't entitled to it. The bench of Justice Arun Monga opined that since there was no discussion of the petitioner's case in the other writ petition, no adverse consequences could be drawn onto the petitioner merely based on some observations regarding his promotion being erroneous made in passing reference.It said, "Sum and substance of the Department having taken so called corrective measure to demote the petitioner after 17 years is stated to have its genesis to a judgment rendered in the case of Mohan Lal (supra), by a Single Bench of this Court whereby, similarly situated counterpart of the petitioner was also seeking promotion/ stepping up of his pay on parity with the petitioner herein. While rejecting the claim of the counterpart, it was observed in the judgment that the counterpart of the petitioner i.e. Mohan Lal was not entitled to the relief sought by him as the Circular dated 30.09.1998 which was sought to be relied upon did not have any application to the case of the petitioner therein. In the passing, it was also observed that the selection grade/promotion granted to the petitioner herein was owing to an erroneous decision taken by the Department. 6. I am unable to persuade myself with the stand taken by the respondents...First and foremost, the petitioner was not a party to the judgment rendered by this Court which seems to be the reason of demotion of the petitioner herein. Furthermore, the judgment rendered by this Court in Mohan Lal's case cannot be treated in rem for the reason that Mohan Lal claimed the relief of stepping up of his pay, therefore, the judgment in his case is/was in personam". For context a right in personam confers legal rights on a party to a contract available against a particular party; while right in rem is a right to anyone who signs a contract and is available against the entire world. The court further said that the petitioner in the present case cannot be "visited with adverse consequences" merely because of certain observations made by the Court, though in the passing reference, with regard to promotion being erroneous, without there being any discussion on the case of the petitioner. “Such observations were merely in the context of determination of the right of relief sought by petitioner in that case, and not to determine validity of what had been conferred to the petitioner herein,” the court added. The petition was filed by a government employee who was appointed in the Public Works Department in 1979 on the post of a Helper Grade II. In 1993, he was promoted to the post of Electrician Grade II on which he served for 17 years before being demoted in 2010 relying on the decision of the Court in a writ petition filed by a counterpart of the petitioner seeking same benefit. Against the order of this demotion, the petition filed the present petition. It was the case of the State that under the service rules, there was no promotion channel from the post of Helper Grade II to the post of Electrician Grade II. Hence, the promotion was illegal based on the statutory rules. It was further submitted that after the decision in the writ petition filed by the counter-part, the matter was thoroughly examined and it was decided that petitioner's promotion was against the rules, and was thus withdrawn as a corrective measure. The Court however said that the observations in the counter-part's plea were only to determine the right of relief claimed in that case, and not to determine the validity of petitioner's promotion.The Court also stated that the demotion order was hopelessly barred by time since the petitioner had served on the post for almost 17 years. The court said that it was not the department's case that the petitioner in the present case had in any manner, indulged in either any misrepresentation or concealment so as to be accorded with the benefit of selection grade, which was being sought by his counterpart.In this background, the Court allowed the petition, quashing the demotion order, and after noting that the petitioner had retired in 2019, directed the disbursement of all retirement benefits as well as pension to the petitioner based on the promoted post.Case Title: Sunder Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 18Click Here To Read/Download Order

Rajasthan HC Sets Aside Employee's Demotion From Post Held For 17 Years, Says Decision Rejecting Peer's Plea Seeking Same Relief Not In Rem

Nupur Agrawal

Tags