The Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad, has affirmed a foundational principle in service law: when a promotion order explicitly grants an employee the option to refuse promotion within a stipulated period, that right is absolute and cannot be overridden by administrative convenience or subjective assessments of reasonableness. This judgment reinforces the autonomy of public employees in making personal career decisions, even in the absence of explicit service regulations.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
Rohtash Kumar, a long-serving Postal Assistant with over three decades of service, was promoted to the HSG-II cadre as Assistant Post Master (Mail & Delivery), Meerut Cantt. HO, vide promotion order dated 06.08.2024. The order explicitly provided: "In case the official is not willing to accept his/her promotion, his/her declination letter in writing duly forwarded by the Division should reach concerned Regional offices within 30 days of issue of this order. Non assumption of charge after 30 days without any valid reason will attract appropriate action against the official."
Procedural History
- 06.08.2024: Promotion order issued with clear option to accept or refuse within 30 days
- 14.08.2024: Respondents issued posting order directing applicant to join promotional post, before deciding on refusal
- 27.08.2024: Applicant submitted written refusal citing serious domestic problems
- 10.10.2024: Competent authority rejected refusal as insufficiently reasoned
- 2024: Applicant filed Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
Relief Sought
The applicant sought quashing of the posting and rejection orders, protection from disturbance at his current posting, and costs. He argued that his refusal was timely, valid, and protected by the terms of the promotion order itself.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an employee’s right to refuse promotion, explicitly granted in the promotion order, can be nullified by the employer on grounds of insufficiently detailed reasons or administrative necessity, particularly when the refusal is submitted within the stipulated time.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel contended that the promotion order created a contractual right to refuse, making acceptance non-mandatory. The refusal was submitted within 30 days, fulfilling the condition precedent. Reliance was placed on Hausilal v. State of U.P. and the Tribunal’s own prior decision in OA No. 1278/2024, which recognized the inalienable right to forgo promotion as a personal liberty under Article 21. The domestic hardships - death of wife, care of three unmarried children, and an ailing mother - were presented as context, not as legal grounds, to underscore the reasonableness of the refusal.
For the Respondent
The State argued that the refusal lacked "cogent reasons" and was merely a general statement of family problems. It contended that since the promotion was within the same division, no hardship existed, and other employees had accepted similar promotions. The State further claimed that the refusal was an afterthought and that the authority had a duty to ensure administrative continuity.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal conducted a rigorous textual and constitutional analysis. It emphasized that the promotion order was not a unilateral directive but a conditional offer containing an express option. The clause permitting refusal was not a mere procedural formality - it was a substantive right.
"The refusal cannot be treated as invalid merely because the reasons were briefly stated. The argument that the promotion was within the same Division and that other officials accepted the promotion is also of no consequence. Each employee has an independent and personal right to accept or decline promotion in terms of the promotion order, and such right cannot be defeated on the basis of choices made by others."
The Court relied on Hausilal v. State of U.P., which held that the right to forgo promotion is an inherent natural right, akin to the right to waive accrued benefits, and falls within the ambit of personal autonomy protected under Article 21. The Court noted that no statutory provision restricts this right, and administrative convenience cannot override a clearly granted contractual option.
The issuance of the posting order on 14.08.2024 - before the 30-day window closed and before the refusal was even considered - was held to be a clear case of non-application of mind and procedural arbitrariness. The subsequent rejection order dated 10.10.2024 was deemed an afterthought, rendered invalid by the prior procedural lapse.
The Court also affirmed that while domestic hardship was not the legal basis for the decision, it reinforced the reasonableness of the refusal and the expectation that public employers act with compassion.
The Verdict
The applicant won. The Tribunal held that an employee’s timely refusal of promotion, where the promotion order explicitly permits such refusal, is binding and cannot be set aside by the employer. The posting and rejection orders were quashed, and the applicant was restored to his prior position.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Right to Refuse Promotion Is Contractual and Absolute
- Practitioners must now argue that any promotion order containing an option to refuse creates a binding contractual right
- Employers cannot impose additional conditions (e.g., "sufficient reason") beyond those stated in the order
- Refusal need not be justified in detail - only timely and in writing
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
- Posting or transfer orders issued before deciding on refusal are procedurally void
- Authorities must first adjudicate the refusal before taking any consequential action
- Delayed rejection after issuance of posting order constitutes arbitrariness under Article 14
Domestic Hardship Reinforces, But Does Not Create, the Right
- While hardship is not a legal ground for refusal, it supports the reasonableness of the employee’s choice
- Public employers must act with sensitivity; failure to do so may attract judicial scrutiny under natural justice
- This does not create a new ground for refusal but protects existing contractual rights from arbitrary interference
