District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala High Court

Injustice Remedied: High Court Directs Review of Upgraded ACRs for Promotion, Upholding Equality Under Article 14

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Delhi, in a landmark judgment delivered by Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Saurabh Banerjee, has quashed the order dated February 12, 2015, regarding the non-restoration of seniority of Guriqbal Singh, a petitioner challenging the order of HQ DG, BSF. The High Court directed the respondents to review the petitioner's promotion case in light of upgraded ACRs, reiterating the constitutional principle of equality under Article 14.

 

 

Guriqbal Singh's legal battle began upon discovering that his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for 2005-06 & 2007-08 were marked below the benchmark, leading to his exclusion from the promotion list. Despite later upgrades on these ACRs, the BSF order dated February 12, 2015, denied retrospective promotion, citing DoP&T's OM dated April 13, 2010, as applicable only to future DPCs.

The Court noted that Singh’s upgraded ACRs merited a review by the DPC. Justice Rao observed, “Having communicated the same, if they have been upgraded, then the upgraded ACRs need to be considered by convening a Review DPC.”

Singh’s case was bolstered by the precedent set in Dev Dutt v. UOI, underscoring that an employee should not suffer due to non-communication of below benchmark ACRs.

 

The bench highlighted discriminatory treatment against Singh compared to another officer, Lala Krishan Kumar Lal, who received retrospective seniority under similar circumstances.

 

The Court found the respondents' reliance on the DoP&T OM for future DPCs only, to be “not convincing/appealing,” and their differential treatment discriminatory under Article 14 of the Constitution.

 

The Court quashed the impugned order and directed the respondents to undertake a promotional exercise within eight weeks, considering Singh’s upgraded ACRs from 2005-06 and 2007-08. If found fit, his promotion should relate back to the date his junior was promoted, with actual and consequential benefits.

Date of Decision: April 2, 2024

Guriqbal Singh v. Union of India & Anr,

 

Latest Legal News