Back
P. B. BAJANTHRI, PURNENDU SINGH
Vinay Kumar Son of Raj Kumar Mahto – Appellant
Versus
Union of India Through the Secretary (Revenue), Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
P. B. Bajanthri, J.
Heard learned counsels for the parties.
2. In the instant petition, petitioners have assailed the order of the Tribunal dated 30.01.2020 passed in O.A. No. 050/00642/2016.
3. Grievance of the petitioners are that they are entitled to promotion to the post of Driver Grade-II w.e.f. 01.04.2013 and they have been given promotion on 24.07.2014. To rectify the date of promotion dated 24.07.2014 for the first time representation was submitted on 09.09.2015 and 07.06.2016 and it was rejected on 22.01.2016 and 16.08.2016 respectively. Petitioners had cause of action on 01.04.2013, the date on which their names were required to be considered for the purpose of promotion to the post of Driver Grade-II. They did not agitate their right at the relevant point of time. Department promoted petitioners on 24.07.2014. Thereafter, they did not immediately approach the authority to rectify the date of promotion from 24.07.2014 to 01.04.2013. On the other hand, they have submitted representations on 09.09.2015 and 07.06.2016. The same were rejected on 22.01.2016 and 16.08.2016 respectively. In this backdrop, petitioners have presented O.A. No. 642 of 2016 and it was rejected
Aggrieved persons must approach the appropriate forum within a reasonable period of time, and the potential impact on third-party rights and administrative chaos should be considered in granting reli....
Aggrieved persons must approach the appropriate forum within a reasonable period of time from the date of cause of action, and potential impact on third-party rights may be considered in granting rel....
A litigant who delays asserting their rights for an extended period may be barred from relief, as delay defeats equity.
Inordinate delay and laches in seeking promotional relief, especially after a substantial period impacting established seniority, bar judicial intervention under Article 226.
Delay in challenging promotions can bar relief; timely action is crucial in promotion matters.
The court emphasized that delays in pursuing promotion claims under Article 226 undermine the validity of such petitions, reinforcing discretion in granting relief based on timeliness.
Stale claims for retrospective promotion and seniority raised 34 years after cause and 16 years post-retirement are barred by delay, laches, and limitation; unchallenged non-selections and accepted d....
Entitlement to promotion against a specific vacancy year is contingent upon a junior's promotion preceding the claimant's promotion.
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
