Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

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

 

Similar News