Patna HC: Promotions Valid Only from Actual or DPC Date

Patna High Court Clarifies: Promotions Valid Only from Actual Promotion Date or DPC Approval, Not Retrospectively

Court rules that holding ‘current duty charge’ does not grant seniority or financial benefits

Judges stress that promotions must follow DPC approval to ensure fairness and transparency

By Our Legal Correspondent

New Delhi: October 24, 2025: The Patna High Court has delivered a landmark judgment on the rules governing promotions in government service. The court held that promotions can only take effect from the date of actual promotion or from the date of approval by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). It categorically ruled that promotions cannot be granted retrospectively from the date an employee was given ‘current duty charge’ of a higher post.

The ruling was delivered by a Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma. The case involved an engineer from the Civil Construction Wing of All India Radio (AIR), who had argued that his promotion should be counted from the date he was given temporary charge of a higher post.

Background of the Case

The respondent was appointed as an Assistant Engineer in AIR on December 19, 1990. Over the years, he received financial upgradation benefits, including a Grade Pay of ₹6,600 from December 18, 2002.

On November 30, 2010, he was assigned the current duty charge of the post of Executive Engineer. However, the appointment letter clearly stated that this arrangement would not entitle him to monetary benefits or seniority.

His case for regular promotion was considered much later by a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), and he was formally promoted to Executive Engineer on February 25, 2020.

The dispute arose when the employee claimed that his promotion should be considered effective from 2010, the date he was given current duty charge, rather than from 2020 when the DPC approved it.

Court’s Observations

The Patna High Court rejected the employee’s claim and made several important observations:

Current duty charge is temporary: Holding charge of a higher post does not amount to promotion. It is only a stop-gap arrangement.
No retrospective effect: Promotions cannot be backdated to the time when an employee was given temporary charge.
DPC approval is essential: A promotion becomes valid only after the Departmental Promotion Committee formally approves it.
No automatic seniority or pay benefits: Employees holding current duty charge cannot claim seniority or financial benefits of the higher post.

The court stressed that allowing retrospective promotions would create administrative chaos, distort seniority lists, and lead to unfair advantages.

Why the Judgment Matters

This ruling is significant for several reasons:

Clarity for government employees: Many employees are given current duty charge of higher posts while awaiting promotion. This judgment clarifies that such arrangements do not grant them seniority or backdated benefits.
Prevents misuse: Without this clarity, employees could misuse temporary assignments to claim retrospective promotions.
Strengthens DPC process: The judgment reinforces the importance of the Departmental Promotion Committee as the final authority in promotions.
Ensures fairness: By preventing retrospective promotions, the court ensures that promotions are based on merit and proper evaluation, not temporary arrangements.

Legal Basis of the Judgment

The court relied on established principles of service law:

Promotion is not a right: An employee cannot demand promotion as a matter of right; it depends on eligibility, vacancies, and DPC approval.
Temporary charge ≠ promotion: Courts have consistently held that temporary arrangements do not confer permanent rights.
Administrative fairness: Seniority and pay scales must be determined by clear rules, not ad hoc arrangements.

The ruling aligns with earlier judgments of the Supreme Court of India, which have also emphasized that promotions cannot be granted retrospectively unless specifically provided by law.

Wider Implications

The judgment will have a wide impact on government departments and public sector undertakings across India.

For employees: It clarifies that they cannot claim retrospective promotions based on temporary postings.
For administration: It prevents disputes over seniority and pay, ensuring smoother functioning of departments.
For courts: It sets a precedent that will guide future cases involving disputes over promotions and current duty charges.

Expert Reactions

Legal experts and service law practitioners have welcomed the ruling.

Service law specialists say the judgment brings much-needed clarity and will reduce litigation.
Government officials believe it will help maintain discipline and fairness in promotions.
Employee unions, however, have expressed concern that delays in holding DPC meetings often disadvantage employees. They argue that the government must ensure timely DPCs so that employees are not stuck in temporary roles for years.

The Problem of Delayed DPCs

One of the key issues highlighted by this case is the delay in convening Departmental Promotion Committees.

In this case, the employee was given current duty charge in 2010 but was formally promoted only in 2020 — a gap of nearly 10 years.
Such delays are common in government departments, leading to frustration among employees.
Experts say that while the court is right to deny retrospective promotions, the government must also ensure that DPCs are held regularly and on time.

Conclusion

The Patna High Court’s ruling that promotions take effect only from the date of actual promotion or DPC approval — and not retrospectively from the date of current duty charge — is a landmark in service law.

It clarifies the legal position for thousands of government employees, prevents misuse of temporary postings, and strengthens the role of the DPC in ensuring fair promotions.

At the same time, the judgment highlights the urgent need for government departments to hold DPCs on time, so that employees are not left in limbo for years.

This ruling will serve as a guiding precedent for future disputes and will help bring greater transparency and fairness to the promotion process in India’s public sector.