Back
H. S. THANGKHIEW
Arun Kumar Tiwari – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
H.S. THANGKHIEW, J.
1. The issue in the present writ petition concerns the inter se seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis the respondents No. 7 and 8, in the cadre of Warrant Officer (Personal Assistant) following their re-mustering in the said cadre w.e.f. 19.02.2008. While the two private respondents were re-mustered from the cadre of Havildar/Clerk, the petitioner was re-mustered from the cadre of Rifleman/Operator Radio and Line (ORL), which was a cadre lower in hierarchy than that of the Havildar cadre. As such, at that point of time, the two private respondents were assigned higher seniority than the petitioner in the cadre of Warrant Officer (PA), which was as per Paragraph – 5 of the Assam Rifles Record Office Instruction (ROI) No. 04/2002.
2. The basis of the claim of the writ petitioner to seniority over the private respondents was on his being retrospectively upgraded to the cadre of Havildar (ORL) w.e.f. 09.11.2002, vide order dated 29.05.2017, which was passed in compliance to the common judgment and order of this Court dated 10.03.2017, in a batch of writ
The court upheld that seniority must be determined based on recruitment batch and performance in training, emphasizing timely challenges to promotions are essential to maintain stability in service r....
Delayed claims in service matters can unsettle settled positions, making them unmaintainable without necessary parties involved.
Claims regarding seniority must be raised promptly; failure to do so can lead to dismissal based on delay and laches.
Determination of seniority must comply with Supreme Court rulings, emphasizing the significance of actual appointment dates over vacancy years, as retrospective seniority is not permissible.
Retrospective promotion cannot be granted to an employee from a date when the employee was not borne in the cadre. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 of the 2002 Rules was found inapplicable to determine the int....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that challenges to administrative decisions must be timely and based on relevant legal provisions to merit consideration by the court.
Employment and Service matter - Re-assessment of seniority - As per Rule 3(1)(b), seniority of teachers in a grade has to be determined on basis of their substantive appointment in that grade, meanin....
The court upheld that administrative discretion in regulating seniority during organizational transitions is valid, nullifying claims if not pursued promptly by affected personnel.
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
