Back
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, MANOJ JAIN
S. Arumugam – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)--Petitioner seeks a direction to respondents to reckon the date of assumption of charge by the petitioner to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) with effect from 14.06.1999, i.e., the date of promotion of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) and further seeks grant of one increment as on 01.01.2006 and next increment as on 01.07.2006 in terms of Office Memorandum dated 19.03.2012 and other consequential benefits.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by a decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court dated 01.04.2019 in WP(C) 4448/2016 titled Vijayan V.V. vs. Union of India & Ors. and other connect matters.
3. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that without admitting any of the contentions of the petitioner and without prejudice to their rights and contentions, since petitioner has given representations dated 31.05.2020 and 27.01.2023, which are under active consideration of the competent authority, this petition be disposed of on the assurance that th
The court emphasized the importance of deciding the representations of the petitioner within a specified time frame and reserved the rights and contentions of the parties.
The court emphasized timely consideration of pending promotion representations under administrative law principles.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the penalty cannot be given retrospective effect from a period when the employee was not under a cloud, and promotion should be granted based ....
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.
A court can direct the consideration of a representation for promotion within a specified period if there is a delay or inaction.
The court's decision emphasized the right of the petitioner to have the representation considered and decided within a specified timeframe, with the option to challenge the decision if aggrieved.
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
