UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana 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