Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. There has been some controversy on the point whether the Government can promote an officer to the higher rank with effect from an earlier date or not. In principle I find no justification for holding that the Government is debarred from doing so. When public functionaries have to perform some statutory functions under the provisions of an Act their actions can be considered to be valid only if they are taken after the appropriate powers have been conferred upon them under the provisions of a particular Act. Such functionaries in most cases decide the conflicting rights of the parties in a quasi judicial manner. Decisions given by them, while they were not invested with statutory powers, cannot be subsequently rendered legal by conferring these powers on them with retrospective effect. The same considerations, however, do not apply when the competent authority after hearing the representation of an employee confers upon him the status to which he was entitled. Again, in a given case the promotion of an employee may have to be deferred because of the pendency of some complaint against him. After he is cleared off the charges, he has to be promoted to the higher rank with effect from the date when this promotion fell due. If this were not done, the right of equality afforded to such an employee under Article 16 of the Constitution would be violated. I am of the considered opinion that in the absence of any rule or other relevant consideration to the contrary, it is open to the Government to make appointments to the promoted rank with retrospective effect. In C. W. No. 4556 of 1973 (Punj.), Rajinder Pal Singh Sandhu v. Speaker, Punjab Vidhan Sabha, a Division Bench of this Court, of which I was a member took the view that Mr. Speaker was competent to recruit the members of the service of the Vidhan Sabha under instructions dated April 11, 1963, issued by the Governor of the erstwhile State of Punjab. It is not disputed that Mr. Speaker was the competent authority to order the promotion of respondent No. 4 to the higher post and I fail to see how any exception can be had to the action of Mr. Speaker merely because he ordered the promotion with retrospective effect. It has already been noticed that before doing so, Mr. Speaker should have given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner but that is a matter which relates to the procedure for making promotions. The inherent right of Mr. Speaker to order promotion cannot be questioned. Similarly, in that very case it has been held that in the absence of rules under Article 187 of the Constitution Mr. Speaker can act on the executive instructions issued by the Governor. In this view of the matter, the first two contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner must be repelled.