Retrospective promotion claims fail where only ad hoc concessions existed and no enforceable service right or Article 14 parity was shown.

Retrospective promotion could not be claimed as a writ entitlement where the benefit sought depended on ad hoc concessions rather than any enforceable service rule or settled policy. The Court treated earlier promotions extended to other batches as isolated indulgences, not a consistent legal standard capable of creating a right to similar treatment, and rejected the Article 14 discrimination claim. It also noted the challenge was raised after substantial delay, with no justification for the petitioners' inaction. On that basis, mandamus for retrospective Assistant Engineer promotion and seniority relief was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the State to grant them retrospective promotion as Assistant Engineers with effect from the dates on which they were placed in charge of sub-divisions, and whether denial of such benefit amounted to discrimination under Article 14.

Analysis: The relief sought depended not on any enforceable service rule but on a claim to concessions that had been extended in different ways to other batches of surveyors and engineers. The concessions already granted were treated as ad hoc indulgences, and no general principle or settled rule was shown to have been consistently applied so as to create a legal right in favour of the petitioners. The Court also noted that the challenge was made long after the impugned administrative action and that the petitioners could not remain inactive merely because their cause had been supported by departmental representations. In these circumstances, the claim of constitutional discrimination failed and the prayer for mandamus could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to retrospective promotion or seniority relief, and the refusal to extend the same indulgence did not warrant interference.

---