Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

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