Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

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