Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

No Entitlement to Retrospective Promotions Without Specific Rules: Delhi HC Dismisses Plea of District and Sessions Courts Employees Welfare Association

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling, has dismissed a writ petition filed by the District and Sessions Courts Employees Welfare Association, seeking retrospective or notional promotions for its members to the posts of Senior Judicial Assistant (SJA) and Judicial Assistant (JA). The judgment, pronounced by Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, held that employees are not entitled to retrospective or notional promotions unless such provisions are explicitly stated in the recruitment rules.

The petition, whichh challenged the promotions made effective from the date the employees assumed charge instead of retrospectively from the date vacancies arose, was thoroughly examined in light of the relevant legal principles and administrative actions involved.

The Court noted, “Service jurisprudence does not recognize retrospective promotion i.e., a promotion from a back date,” aligning with the established principles in several Supreme Court judgments.

Addressing the administrative actions, the Court observed that the promotions in question were not delayed due to negligence but were a result of procedural administrative processes.

The Court emphasized that retrospective promotions cannot be granted merely based on administrative delays or lapses unless recruitment rules provide such retrospectivity.

The petitioners sought to quash the letter dated 25.09.2020 issued by Respondent No.1 and sought directions for promotions to be carried out in consonance with earlier notifications. The main contention revolved around the promotions granted to the members of the Petitioner Association in September 2021, which the petitioners argued should have been effective from when the respective vacancies had arisen.

The Court, after considering the submissions and scrutinizing the voluminous documents, concluded that there is no vested right for employees to retrospective promotions. The Court stated, “Employees do not have any vested or indefeasible right to retrospective/notional promotion, unless the recruitment rules so provide.” Consequently, the petition was dismissed, along with all pending applications, including the applications for participation in the Departmental Competitive Examination for the post of SJA.

 Date of Decision: 05.02.2024

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURTS EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION VS DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE HEADQUARTERS & ANR

Latest Legal News