UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana 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

 

Latest Legal News