Person Cannot Earn A Promotion During Pendency Of Punishment Order: Punjab & Haryana HC Sets Aside Order Entitlting Promotion to Employee
An Appeal was filed by the State Bank of India against the decision of the Single Bench directing the grant of promotion to an Employee.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside an order that entitled promotion to an employee while holding that a person cannot earn a promotion during the pendency of a punishment order.
The Court explained that if a person has been punished with stopping increments for a particular period, he cannot be granted promotion during that period, because on promotion, he would be entitled to an increment. “Both the things cannot go together,” it explained. The Appeal was filed by the State Bank of India (SBI/Appellant) against the decision of the Single Bench, which had directed the Appellant to grant promotion to the Employee (Respondent).
A Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Meenakshi I Mehta held, “However, we are of firm view that a person cannot earn a promotion during the pendency of a punishment order. If a person has been punished with stopping of increments for a particular period, he cannot be granted promotion during that period, because on promotion, he would be entitled for increment. Both the things cannot go together.”
Advocate Akshay Jain represented the Appellant, while Advocate Shreenath A. Khemka appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts
A complaint of sexual harassment was filed against the Respondent leading to an inquiry under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. The inquiry committee found him guilty, and he was issued a charge sheet following which the disciplinary authority imposed a penalty of stopping two increments for 30 months without cumulative effect.
Despite this penalty, the Respondent was promoted to Chief Manager. However, SBI later issued a show-cause notice stating that his promotion was erroneous as the penalty was still in force on the date of promotion. The Respondent was subsequently reverted on August 2, 2018. He challenged this decision before the Single Bench, which directed SBI to reinstate his promotion.
Court’s Reasoning
The Bench reiterated that the Courts themselves cannot direct or declare anyone as promoted because the promotion of an individual requires consideration of not only their eligibility but other aspects as well.
“The promotion policy framed under the said Regulations provides for promotion by selection and not by seniority alone, which means that a person must possess a clean record of service for the purpose of promotion. During the tenure of a minor penalty, a person therefore cannot be granted promotion,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court held, “In view thereof, we set aside the order passed by the Single Judge to the extent of declaring entitlement of respondent/writ petitioner for promotion with effect from 17.12.2017, and instead we direct the appellant to now consider the case of the petitioner for promotion against the vacancy available as on 17.12.2017, after ignoring the minor punishment order supra. If the petitioner is found fit for promotion, the same shall be ordered with consequential benefits.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition.
Cause Title: State Bank Of India v. Suteekshan Mird (Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:008524-DB)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocate Bikramjit Singh Baath
Respondent: Advocates Sushma Sharma and Ramesh Sharma
Click here to read/download the Order