Appellate Court Can Allow Additional Evidence To Ensure Fair Adjudication Even If Not Produced In Trial: Madhya Pradesh High Court Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts Under Section 106 BNSS Upon Suspicion Of 'Proceeds Of Crime': Punjab & Haryana High Court 'No Penalty For Monthly MGQ Shortfall If Annual Target Met': Supreme Court Upholds Quashing Of Excise Department Demands For Liquor Licensees 'Murder Went Unavenged, But Courts Cannot Convict On Mere Assumptions': Supreme Court Acquits Accused In 1988 Murder Case, Quashes High Court's Remit Order 'NCSC Cannot Pass Mandatory Adjudicatory Orders Directing Payment Of Arrears': Supreme Court Clarifies Commission's Powers Under Article 338 "'Cannot Present Fait Accompli': Supreme Court Upholds Denial Of NOC To Airman For Skipping Prior Permission To Apply For Civil Post" Supreme Court Upholds 2017 Notification For Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearances, Quashes 2021 Office Memorandum As Impermissible Executive Overreach Workman Fails To Prove 240 Days Continuous Work; Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Denial Of Reinstatement For "Abandonment Of Service" Party Cannot Take Contradictory Stands In Same Case, Admissions In Pleadings Bind Them Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC: Telangana High Court Delayed Recovery Of Weapon From Open Space Casts Serious Doubt On Prosecution Story: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Convicts Procedural Irregularities By Public Servants Serve As Circumstantial Evidence Of Conspiracy In Corruption Cases: Kerala High Court Blaming Previous Counsel For Omission Does Not Satisfy 'Due Diligence' Test To Amend Plaint After Trial Commences: Punjab & Haryana High Court Muslim Man's Second Marriage Under Special Marriage Act Void Despite Personal Law Permitting Bigamy: Karnataka High Court Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court Title And Ownership Irrelevant In Suit Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act; Plaint Liable To Be Rejected If Filed Beyond Six Months: Delhi High Court Receipt Of Pension By Widow Can Be Considered To Determine 'Just Compensation' But Not To Deprive Claimants Of Award: Calcutta High Court FSL Report Lacking Scientific Criteria And Data Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Allahabad High Court Issues Directives For Testing Viscera Standard Of Proof In Railway Accident Claims Is Preponderance Of Probabilities, Not Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Gujarat High Court No Second Statutory Appeal Lies Against Conviction By Appellate Court Reversing Acquittal; Revision Is Sole Remedy: Supreme Court Wives' Property Is Their Own, Not Husband's: Supreme Court REJECTS High Court's Succession Formula; Restores Clarity For Christian Inheritance

Promotions Are Not to Be Granted Retrospectively Unless Specifically Allowed By Rules: Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition challenging the eligibility criteria for the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for promotion within the Indian Railways Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited (IRCTC). Hon'ble Justice Tushar Rao Gedela emphasized that "promotions are not to be granted retrospectively unless specifically allowed by rules" in the case of Anil Kumar Bharti versus Indian Railways Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited.

The petitioner, Anil Kumar Bharti, contested the circular dated 13.11.2023, arguing that the cut-off date for determining eligibility should be 01.07.2022 as per the IRCTC Promotion Policy and Rules, 2014, and not 13.11.2023 as stated in the circular. The petition sought retrospective effect on his promotion, which would make him eligible for the LDCE as per the impugned circular.

Justice Gedela, in his ruling, stated, "There is no doubt that when clause 4.6 indicate the cutoff date of eligibility would 1st July of that year, it would take within its ambit only those persons who were eligible to be considered for promotion to the next higher grade and were eligible as on 1st July of that year irrespective of when the vacancy arose before that date." This observation highlighted the court's stance on adhering strictly to the prescribed rules of promotion without retrospective adjustments.

The court relied on several Supreme Court judgments, including Union of India and Others vs. N.R. Banerjee and Others, and Manpreet Singh Poonam vs. Union of India and Another, which underscored the principle that promotions should be based on the date they are actually granted, not from when a vacancy arises.

Delhi High Court's decision reaffirms the principle of strict adherence to promotion rules as laid down in statutory policies, setting a precedent for similar cases in the future. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs, and all pending applications were also disposed of.

Date of Decision: 15.01.2024

ANIL KUMAR BHARTI VS INDIAN RAILWAYS CATERING

 

Latest Legal News