Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization

Supreme Court Upholds Termination and Invalidates Promotion Based on Interim Order

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India upheld the termination of services of a petitioner who had been appointed as a temporary Collection Peon. The Court further invalidated a subsequent promotion granted to the petitioner, which was based on an interim order following the termination. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal.

The petitioner’s services were terminated with notice and salary in 1998, but he continued functioning in his role under an interim order. This allowed him to subsequently secure a promotion as Collection Amin in 2009. The Court, however, found that the termination order had attained finality and remained unchallenged, rendering the promotion invalid after the Special Leave Petition was dismissed. The Court stated, “Any promotion given to the petitioner consequent to his continuance in service on the strength of the interim order would automatically fall to the ground once the Special Leave Petition is dismissed and the termination order attains finality.” (Para 11)

The Court upheld the Division Bench’s decision to allow the appeal filed by the State, which had challenged the petitioner’s promotion based on the termination of his services. The Court noted that the petitioner’s continuation in service and subsequent promotion were contingent on the interim order, which lost significance after the termination order’s finality was established.

The bench also directed that the respondents should refrain from initiating any recovery of the salary drawn by the petitioner for the period he actually worked. The Court’s decision emphasized the importance of adherence to termination orders and the impact of interim orders on subsequent promotions.

DATE OF DECISION: August 29, 2023

JAGPAL SINGH vs THE STATE OF U.P. & ORS.   

    

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/29-Aug-2023_Jagpal_Vs_State.pdf"]

Latest Legal News