Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
DEEPAK ROSHAN
Sweta Kumar W/o Late Khagendra Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs:
(i) For direction upon respondents to pay the consequential benefits by granting proper pay scale and pay fixation in the category of Senior Selection Grade w.e.f. 01.12.1995, as the same has been granted by notification no. 146 dated 13.08.2009 (Annexure-2) but, till date the consequential monetary benefits has not been paid to the petitioners without any rhyme and reasons, although, same relief has been granted to the juniors like Mr. Gupteshwar Ram and Aabha Kusum Tirkey, which are juniors to the petitioners.
(ii) For further, direction upon the respondents, to grant the pay scale of 3700-5000 w.e.f. from 01.12.1995, replacement pay scale of Rs 12000-15600 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and consequential pay scale implemented time to time and to pay the arrears of salary accordingly.
3. The respondents have filed counter affidavit bringing on record Letter no. 259 dated 27.07.2016; whereby and whereunder notification no. 146 dated 13.08.2009 (Annexure-2) was modified to the extent that now the benefit of promotion has been made admissib
Promotion benefits must be provided retrospectively if employees are faultless for the delay; state errors cannot obstruct rightful claims.
Promotional benefits must be granted from the actual date of promotion, not from the date of notification, ensuring equal treatment for similarly situated employees.
Quashing of punishment has retrospective effect; employee gets promotion and financial benefits from juniors' promotion dates when delay due to employer's fault; 'no work no pay' inapplicable; incomp....
Authorities have discretion to correct financial discrepancies in pay, yet wrongful promotions may negate claims for additional benefits like A.C.P. confirmations.
The arbitrary introduction of a cut-off date affecting an employee's entitlement to a promotional pay scale was held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the law in force at the time of eligibility for financial upgradations shall govern the entitlement of the employee, and there are limitations....
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.
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
