3 min readNew DelhiDec 31, 2025 10:50 AM IST
First published on: Dec 31, 2025 at 10:29 AM IST
While rejecting a Patiala-based woman’s plea for promotion to senior town planner, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that while an employee has a fundamental right to be considered for promotion, they do not possess a vested right.
Justice Namit Kumar was dealing with a woman’s plea seeking directions for her promotion as senior town planner in the department of town and country planning, Punjab.
“As per settled law, promotion is neither a vested nor fundamental right. Only consideration for promotion is a fundamental right. There is nothing wrong in the action of the respondents in not promoting her to the post of Senior Town Planner,” the court held.
The court, however, allowed her plea to the extent she sought pay and allowances for performing the duties and responsibilities of senior town planner.
“The claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Senior Town Planner is rejected, however, she is held entitled for the pay scale for the post of Senior Town Planner with effect from 21.07.2023, the date she was given current duty charge, till the date of her retirement,” the court held.
Case
The petitioner joined as junior draftsman in the department of town and country planning, Punjab, in 1990 on a regular basis and was promoted as planning draftsman in 2008.
Thereafter, she was selected and appointed to the post of assistant town planner through Punjab public service commission. Subsequently, she was promoted as district town planner.
The petitioner was assigned the duty charge of the post of senior town planner. She completed her 5 years of service as district town planner in 2023 and became eligible for promotion to the post of senior town planner.
Her representation for considering her for further promotion to the post of Senior Town Planner prior to retirement was not considered.
In its reply, the director of town and country planning, Punjab submitted that while the petitioner was in service, she had submitted her hearing disability certificate wherein her temporary hearing disability was certified upto 41 per cent, to claim all the service benefits admissible to a disabled government employee, including her retirement at the age of 60 years instead of 58 years.
Thereafter, the petitioner submitted another disability certificate wherein her hearing disability was certified as 53 per cent permanent disability and since there were two disability certificates from the petitioner, it arose a suspicion.
The Medical Board declared her hearing disability as ‘not permanent’, and consequently her claim to consider her as a handicap was rejected by the competent authority and decided to retire her as she had attained the age of 58 years.
The court while holding that promotion is not a vested fundamental right upheld the rejection of her promotion.
Justice Namit Kumar allowed her plea to the extent petitioner sought pay for performing duties of senior town planner. (Image enhanced using AI) 
Share
