Gratuity Is A Statutory Right, Cannot Be Denied On Vague Allegations Of Abandonment: Calcutta High Court Directs Employer To Pay Pending Gratuity With Interest Prosecutrix Is a Victim of Crime, Not an Accomplice — Sole Testimony Sufficient for Conviction If It Inspires Confidence: Bombay High Court Rape Is An Offence Against Society And Not A Matter To Be Left For Compromise: Allahabad High Court Refuses To Quash Proceedings Under Section 376 IPC And U.P. Conversion Prevention Act Despite Settlement Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Compartmentalized Horizontal Reservation in Sports Quota for MBBS Admissions Total Non-Compliance of Section 42 Vitiates the Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in 25-Year-Old NDPS Case Involving 30 Bags of Poppy Husk An Advocate’s Office Situated in a Commercial Building Qualifies as Non-Residential Use Entitling Eviction under Section 12(1)(f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to Criminal History—Conspiracy Allegations Alone Insufficient Without Direct Role in SC/ST Offence: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Vested Right to Retain Government Accommodation After Losing Public Office — Penal Rent Justified for Unauthorized Occupation: Patna High Court These Litigations Appear to Be Luxury Litigations: Allahabad High Court Imposes Cost on Over 6400 Petitioners Seeking Revival of TET-Based Selection Process Rule 6(2) Is Not a Cut-Off Provision—Supreme Court Declares Candidates Eligible If D.El.Ed. Was Completed Before Selection Implementation of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme Cannot Be Halted on the Basis of Belated and Baseless Custody Without Communication of Grounds Is No Custody in Law —Violation of Articles 21 and 22 Nullifies Arrest and Remand: Punjab & Haryana High Court Declares Arrest of Music Producer as Illegal Scribe Is Not a Substitute for Attesting Witness—Will Must Satisfy Section 63 of Succession Act and Section 68 of Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Rejects 45-Year-Old Testamentary Claim Removal From Service With Superannuation Benefits Entitles Employee to Pension: Supreme Court Acknowledgment of Liability Extends Limitation — Pendency of Appeal No Ground to Resist Recovery: Supreme Court Sympathy Cannot Override Binding Conditions of Tender: Supreme Court Sets  Aside High Court’s Direction to Alter Applicant’s Group Classification for BPCL Dealership Land Acquisition | Factory Without CLU Can't Claim Land Release Despite Long Possession; However, Compensation Under 2013 Act Granted : Supreme Court Person’s Identity Is Not Lost If a Machine Fails to Recognize Them: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes LIC’s Rejection Over Biometric Mismatch Mother Cannot Mask Paternity to Satisfy Ego: Bombay High Court Rejects Petition to List Woman as ‘Single Parent’ in Child’s Birth Certificate Transferee Pendente Lite Is Bound by the Decree—Cannot Obstruct Execution Proceedings: Allahabad High Court Pulls Up Revisional Court for Overreach Higher Placement in Seniority List Cannot Be Ignored: Supreme Court Upholds Direction to Consider Contractual Worker for Appointment on Par with Others Regularised CBI Investigation is Not to Be Ordered Routinely on Vague Allegations: Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court’s Order Directing CBI Probe in Extortion Case When Aggressors Trespass Armed into a Dwelling and Cause Fatal Injuries, Exception to Murder Does Not Arise: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction under Section 302 IPC Delayed Payment for 50 Years Warrants Reasonable Interest, But Excessive Rates Cannot Be Granted": Supreme Court

No One Can Be Denied Already Granted Benefit Without Due Process: High Court Demands Fair Play in Promotions

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling that underscores the principles of justice and fair administrative practice in government promotions, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, led by Hon'ble Justice Jagmohan Bansal, issued a landmark judgment yesterday. The court emphasized the critical need for due process in administrative actions, particularly in matters of promotions and seniority.

The case, involving a group of petitioners from the Punjab Home Guards and Civil Defense department, revolved around a contentious seniority list that seemingly disadvantaged the petitioners despite their earlier promotions. Justice Bansal, in his ruling, asserted, “No one can be denied already granted benefit without issuing show cause notice followed by opportunity of hearing.” This statement has resonated across administrative and legal circles, highlighting the court's commitment to ensuring that due procedures are followed in governmental decisions.

The petitioners, initially promoted to Havildar Instructors and then to Platoon Commanders, found themselves in a predicament when their retrospective promotions were not acknowledged in the department's seniority list. They approached the High Court seeking redressal and the setting aside of the contested seniority list.

Delving into the intricacies of the case, Justice Bansal pointed out the flaws in the administrative process. He noted that the respondent's actions amounted to recalling previous promotion orders without proper notice and hearing, which is contrary to the principles of natural justice and administrative fairness.

The court directed the State to issue show cause notices and provide a hearing opportunity to the petitioners before finalizing the seniority list. This decision is expected to have far-reaching implications, especially in reinforcing the rule of law and procedural fairness in governmental actions.

Date of Decision: 12.01.2024

MOHANDEEP SINGH AND OTHERS  VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS         

 

Similar News