Back
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
S. K. Thongdok – Appellant
Versus
State of Arunachal Pradesh, represented by Chief Secretary – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
Heard Mr. B. Taipodia, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Addl. Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh, assisted by Ms. Riyum Basar, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of all the respondents.
2. By way of instituting the present proceeding, the petitioners have prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities for granting of retrospective effect to their promotion to the posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police(DySP) figuring in the Arunachal Pradesh Police Service as effected vide order, dated 20.08.2016, with effect from the date, the vacancies had so arisen in the said cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police(DySP).
3. The facts requisite for considering the issue arising in the present proceeding is noticed as under:
The petitioners who were serving as Inspectors of Arunachal Pradesh Police, had their next promotional avenue to the posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police(DySP) figuring in the Arunachal Pradesh Police Service. The manner and method for filling up the posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police(DySP) figuring in the Arunachal Pradesh Police Service is regulated by
The right to consideration for promotion is governed by the rules in effect at the time of consideration, not those in place when vacancies arose.
Withdrawal of granted notional retrospective promotion without opportunity of hearing violates natural justice, especially where delay in DPC was administrative and employees eligible, entitling rest....
Retrospective promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right when disciplinary proceedings or penalties were operative at the time of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) assessment, and prom....
Promotion eligibility requires fulfillment of specific conditions at retirement; mere vacancy does not confer entitlement to retrospective promotion.
The court upheld the validity of a change in promotion criteria and ruled that the petitioners' claims for retrospective promotion were barred by res judicata due to a prior judgment.
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.
Promotion rights are not absolute; retrospective promotions require clear vacancies and adherence to procedural rules, which were not met in this case.
The right to promotion constitutes a fundamental right under Article 16, and arbitrary actions by regulatory bodies that deny such rights are unlawful.
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
