Observing that the promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of “right” without establishing eligibility under service rules, the Madhya Pradesh High Court had rejected a former railway employee’s plea for retrospective promotion from 1986 and over Rs 45 lakh in consequential salary arrears.Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke held that without establishing entitlement to promotion and consequential pay fixation under service rules, salary differences could not be claimed based on personal assessment.The October 22 order said, “Promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of course solely on the ground that the employee had been discharging duties or that other employees may have received a particular benefit. The claim must be founded upon the applicable recruitment and service rules, the prescribed eligibility conditions, and the relevant service record.”Also Read | ‘Promotion is fundamental right’: Punjab and Haryana High Court orders quarterly DPC meetings to end employee stagnationThe court pointed out that the monetary claim was intrinsically linked to the petitioner’s claim of promotion.Petitioner sought promotion from 1986The petitioner was initially appointed as a casual labourer (Khalasi) in the Railways in 1978 and was later appointed as a permanent Gangman in 1992. He claimed that he was entitled to promotion to the post of Mate with effect from July 20, 1986, along with consequential salary benefits and arrears. The Milind Ramesh Phadke noted that the record indicates that the petitioner had earlier approached the CAT in 2007 seeking promotion.The petitioner alleged that the railway authorities withheld his salary for certain periods and improperly struck off his attendance. He also challenged the departmental proceedings initiated against him over alleged unauthorised absence, which led to his removal from service.His removal order was later set aside, and he was reinstated in January 2016. However, he claimed that the authorities had not paid him the entire salary and other benefits due for the intervening periods.Story continues below this adAfter submitting representations to the departmental authorities seeking promotion and payment of salary arrears, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking promotion and approximately Rs 45 lakh in alleged salary arrears.The tribunal dismissed his application in February, 2020, holding that he had failed to establish his entitlement to the reliefs claimed. He then challenged the tribunal’s order before the high court.“Earlier proceedings cannot establish right to promotion”The court said that the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Mate with effect from July 20, 1986 is not a matter arising for the first time in the proceedings under challenge.The ruling noted that the record indicates that the petitioner had earlier approached the CAT in 2007 seeking promotion to the post of Mate with effect from the same date. “The mere reference to earlier proceedings or departmental correspondence cannot, by itself, establish an enforceable right to promotion or arrears of salary unless the underlying orders and applicable service rules support such entitlement,” it added.Story continues below this adThe court noted that the petitioner asserted a consolidated claim of Rs 45 lakh for various non-work/reinstatemenr periods and pay differences without establishing the precise mathematical basis, pay scale, period of legal entitlement, or attendance records.