Conviction Under Section 409 IPC Postulates Strict Proof Of Entrustment; Suspicion However Grave Cannot Substitute Proof: Supreme Court Criminal Prosecution Emanating From Past Matrimonial Relationship Ought Not To Linger After Divorce: Supreme Court Negligence Of Previous Counsel Not A Ground To Reopen Concluded Pre-Charge Evidence Under Section 311 CrPC: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell Cannot Protect Tenant's Possession Under Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act: Delhi High Court Certified Copies Of Registered Sale Deeds Admissible As Secondary Evidence Without Proving Loss Of Original: Gauhati High Court Counsel Representing Deceased Party Must Inform Court Of Death Under Order XXII Rule 10-A CPC: J&K High Court Son Staying In Father's House Out Of Love And Affection Is A Mere Licensee, Cannot Challenge Father's Title: Delhi High Court Conviction For Murder Cannot Stand Where Single Blow Inflicted In Sudden Fight Without Premeditation: Uttarakhand High Court Inability To Trace Suppliers Or Buyers No Ground For Custodial Interrogation Once Recovery Is Effected: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Assemble Peacefully To Celebrate Association Anniversary Is A Fundamental Right; Unlawful Assembly Per Se Not An Offence: Madras High Court Marriage Photographs Can Be Relied Upon To Estimate Quantity Of Gold Ornaments In Matrimonial Disputes: Kerala High Court POCSO Act Not Confined To Securing Convictions, Soul Of Law Lies In Preserving Childhood Dignity & Healing: Madras High Court Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad 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