The Supreme Court of India ruled in favor of Jyotshna Singh, a senior officer in the Jharkhand State Administrative Service, directing retrospective promotion and payment of arrears. Singh had been denied timely promotion to the post of Joint Secretary due to disciplinary proceedings initiated nearly a decade after the alleged incident. The Court found these proceedings unsustainable and ordered that she be granted promotion benefits from the date her immediate junior was promoted.

The bench, comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, held that Singh was entitled to be promoted as Joint Secretary from the date her junior, Uma Mahato, was promoted. The Court directed state authorities to issue appropriate orders and release all arrears of pay and allowances within four months. Additionally, if Singh had retired, her pension was to be re-fixed, and arrears paid accordingly. The Court also ordered that she would be entitled to interest at the rate of seven percent on account of the delay, to be recovered from the officers responsible.

Singh contended that she should have been promoted to the post of Joint Secretary from the date her junior was promoted, rather than waiting until her own promotion order was belatedly issued. Although the Jharkhand High Court had previously set aside the disciplinary proceedings and directed that her promotion be considered retrospectively, the division bench declined to grant relief on her contempt petition when the state failed to comply fully.

In compliance with the High Court’s earlier directions, Singh was eventually promoted to Joint Secretary on November 30, 2022, and retired on December 31, 2023. However, the financial benefits and facilities of the promoted post were granted only from the date of assumption of charge, leaving her without the retrospective benefits due from the date her junior was elevated.

The state argued before the Supreme Court that Singh was ineligible for promotion until May 2015 when she became Additional Collector, as the rules required five years of service for promotion to Joint Secretary. It was also argued that when the Departmental Promotion Committee met in March 2020, Singh was under the effect of punishment imposed in departmental proceedings, which disqualified her for consideration.

The bench rejected these arguments, holding that the punishment and the entire proceedings had already been set aside. It noted that the charge sheet was issued in 2017 concerning an allegation dating back nearly a decade earlier and that the departmental inquiry had been conducted in violation of principles governing disciplinary proceedings. The Court characterized the proceedings as a sham and held that Singh’s case should have been considered from the date her immediate junior was considered.

The Court also criticized the division bench of the High Court for refusing to grant relief. “We are of the view that the division bench egregiously erred in rejecting the contempt petition. Considering the long pendency as also the fact that the appellant is now retired, we were inclined to consider the merits of the claim made before the contempt court,” the bench observed.

The background of the case reveals that Singh, while posted as Block Development Officer at Chandwa, noticed improper entries in the cash book. Proceedings were taken against the Nazir of the Block, and reports were made to the Deputy Commissioner. In 2007, the Audit Team raised an objection regarding excess payment of Rs. 5.60 lakh. The Deputy Commissioner found no embezzlement, and the State Audit Team accepted the report in 2009. Singh continued in service without interruption and received promotions.

It was only in 2017 that a charge sheet was issued, followed by an order in 2019 withholding three increments. The High Court, however, found that the interpolations in the cash book were properly explained and that there was no basis for finding misappropriation. It set aside the disciplinary proceedings and directed that Singh’s promotion be considered with retrospective effect and all consequential benefits granted.

The Supreme Court has now ordered the state to grant full retrospective benefits, re-fix her pension, and pay arrears with interest.

📰 Crime Today News is proudly sponsored by DRYFRUIT & CO – A Brand by eFabby Global LLC

Design & Developed by Yes Mom Hosting