Case Summary: The Institute vs. Mr. XYZ – Time-Bound Promotion Dispute

In a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India, the case between The Institute and Mr. XYZ regarding a time-bound promotion dispute has been resolved. The Court’s decision has far-reaching implications on the rights and entitlements of employees in similar positions. Let’s delve into the details of this crucial legal battle and the impact of the verdict on both the respondent, Mr. XYZ, and the petitioner, The Institute.


  • The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal by the respondent and set aside the judgment of the Single Judge.
  • The appellant was directed to grant the respondent the pay scale and designation of Section Officer from 05.03.1993 and Executive Officer from 05.03.2002 under the TBPS on a notional basis.
  • Arrears of salary and emoluments were also to be paid to the respondent as per the revised scales.
  • The respondent was appointed as an Electrician on 26.02.1974.
  • He was confirmed in the permanent post of Electrician on 16.04.1976.
  • A settlement dated 10.01.1984 was reached between the Institute and the Employees’ Association regarding time-bound promotions/change to the next grade.
  • There were subsequent settlements in 1988 and 1991 with regard to promotions and demands raised by the Employees’ Association.
  • Despite representations for promotion to Section Officer, the respondent’s designation continued as Electrician.
  • Various office orders were issued regarding his transfers, pay scale revisions, and increments.
  • The President’s decision on 25.02.1984 specified that certain positions including Electricians were entitled only to the next grade.
  • The respondent retired during the pendency of a writ petition filed before the High Court challenging the promotion denial.
  • The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal, granting the respondent the higher grade.

Also Read: Interpretation of Lease Agreement and Compulsory Registration


  • The appellant argues that the respondent, an Electrician, was not entitled to time-bound promotion as per the settlement/agreement dated 01.10.1984 and the President’s decision dated 25.02.1984.
  • The Division Bench erred in quashing the earlier judgment by the Single Judge.
  • The subsequent settlements of 02.08.1988 and 15.06.1991 did not specifically exclude Electricians from time-bound promotions.
  • The appellant contends that the respondent was always an Electrician and not entitled to such promotions.
  • The Division Bench correctly directed the appellant to grant promotion to the respondent under the TBPS, considering the exclusion clause of the agreement dated 10.01.1984.
  • The appellant argues that the respondent was not appointed or promoted to the position of Section Officer, as there was no promotion channel from Electrician to Section Officer.
  • The High Court erred in relying on the subsequent settlements of 02.08.1988 and 15.06.1991 to direct promotion to the post of Section Officer.
  • The appellant asserts that the President’s order of 25.02.1984 was not communicated to the respondent, hence not binding.
  • The High Court’s decision to promote the respondent to the post of Section Officer and Executive Officer under the TBPS was erroneous.
  • The appellant highlights the distinct policies for Class-III/IV employees versus special category employees like Electricians.
  • The respondent was entitled only to the next higher scale as per the appellant’s argument.
  • The High Court’s observation on the lack of specific exclusion in the subsequent settlements is disputed by the appellant.
  • The settlement of 02.08.1988 continued the applicability of the earlier settlement of 10.01.1984.
  • Respondent was appointed as a Section Officer in the Diary/Dispatch Section, not as an Electrician.
  • Respondent was given the pay scale of Assistant from 05.03.1996.
  • Respondent was entitled to promotion to the next post of Section Officer under the TBPS.
  • If the appellant’s contention is accepted, there will be stagnation for the respondent with no chance of promotion under the TBPS.
  • Granting time-bound promotion would be against the policy if the respondent is not given a chance for promotion.
  • The appeal is prayed to be dismissed based on the above submissions.

Also Read: Enhancing Compensation and Modifying Sentences: A Legal Analysis


  • The High Court erred in observing that the Electrician was entitled to promotion under the Time-Bound Promotion Scheme (TBPS) based on subsequent settlements.
  • The subsequent settlement dated 02.08.1988 was not properly considered by the High Court, which had specific provisions regarding promotion under TBPS.
  • The settlement dated 10.01.1984 and the decision of the President on 25.02.1984 did not provide promotion under TBPS for positions like Electrician.
  • The Employee’s Association settlements did not confer new rights of promotion under TBPS in 1988 and 1991.
  • Temporary charge of a higher post does not equate to actual promotion under TBPS.
  • The decision to promote individuals not falling under specific categories was left to the President of ICAI as per the settlement/agreement.
  • The Division Bench of the High Court directed the appellant to promote the respondent to the posts of Assistant and Section Officer under the TBPS.
  • The promotion was based on memorandums of settlements dated 02.08.1988 and 15.06.1991.
  • The judgment and order of the Division Bench cannot be sustained and should be quashed and set aside.

Also Read: SPML Infra Limited vs. Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh


  • The impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is quashed and set aside.
  • The respondent shall receive the same salary as Section Officers for the period he worked as a Section Officer, whether on an officiating basis or when given charge.
  • The appellant is directed to pay the respondent the same salary if it has not been done so far.
  • The appeal is allowed with no costs.


Case Number: C.A. No.-000200-000200 / 2020

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *