CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness

High Court Rules in Favor of Petitioner for Deemed Promotion Date: "Application Not Barred by Limitation"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment dated March 26, 2024, the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, has overruled the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal’s decision in the case of Vishnupanth Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others. The Division Bench, comprising Justices Nitin W. Sambre and Abhay J. Mantri, decreed that the petitioner is rightfully entitled to a deemed date of promotion from the time he passed his professional examination.

The petitioner, who initially served as a Muster Clerk and then as a Sub-Overseer following his diploma in Civil Engineering, had approached the Tribunal seeking recognition of his promotion date from the moment he cleared his professional exam in 1986. However, the Tribunal dismissed his application, citing it was “hopelessly barred by limitation” and misinterpreting relevant Government Resolutions.

Justice Abhay J. Mantri, delivering the judgment, asserted, “The Tribunal erred in dealing with the question of limitation suo motu.” The High Court recognized that the cause of action for filing the application is continuous and therefore, not bound by the standard limitations. The Court also noted that the Tribunal had made a mistake in misreading the clauses of the Government Resolutions, leading to an incorrect conclusion.

The case drew comparisons with the precedent set in Writ Petition No.1683/2021, where the Coordinate Bench had dealt with similar issues of limitation and deemed dates of promotion for Junior Engineers. Upholding the principles from this previous judgment, the High Court directed the respondents to acknowledge the petitioner's deemed promotion date as either 18-03-1986 or 13-02-1986, aligning with his exam success, along with subsequent pensionary benefits.

This decision has significant implications for government employees seeking recognition of their professional qualifications in terms of seniority and promotion dates. The ruling underscores the High Court’s commitment to ensuring fair interpretation of service rules and resolutions, while also addressing the nuances of cases that involve continuous causes of action.

Date of Decided : 26-03-2024

VISHNUPANTH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

 

Latest Legal News