Back
B. R. GAVAI, K. VINOD CHANDRAN
Jyotshna Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appeal arises from an order in a contempt case wherein the Division Bench refused to entertain the petition, finding that in the context of the prayers made before the writ court, the submission that the retrospective promotion directed in the LPA should relate back to the date on which the appellant’s immediate junior was promoted, was clearly unfair. The order in the LPA from which the contempt petition arose, issued a mandamus categorically directing consideration of consequential benefits of writ petitioner including consideration of her case for promotion with retrospective effect, after setting aside the disciplinary proceedings initiated with a delay of about 10 years, which proceeding was also conducted in total violation of the principles governing departmental proceedings.
3. We are of the view that the Division Bench egregiously erred in rejecting the contempt petition. Considering the long pendency as also the fact that the appellant is now retired, we were inclined to consider the merits of the claim made before the contempt court, for which a brief reference to the background facts is absolutely necessary.
4. The appel
There can be no discrimination in matter of grant of promotion.
The court clarified that 'consequential benefits' do not inherently include further promotions unless explicitly ordered, and compliance with the original judgment was established.
An employee exonerated from disciplinary proceedings is entitled to retrospective promotion and benefits if procedural defects in the enquiry are established.
Point of Law : In case of a notional promotion from retrospective date, it cannot entitle the employee to arrears of salary as the incumbent has not worked in the promotional post.
A mere inclusion in a promotion panel does not create a vested right to promotion; candidates are entitled only to consideration for promotion within valid administrative discretion.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that promotions should be based on the date the DPC considered the vacancy for filling up, rather than the date the vacancy arose. The court also e....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
