Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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