Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

By virtue of Exhibit P10 government order, a cadre promotion was introduced. The second petitioner was in the cadre of Personal Development and at that time the petitioner was holding the post of Assistant Grade-I with effect from  1/9/1990. By Exhibit P11 order, the second petitioner was promoted to the cadre of Superintendent. The second petitioner, admittedly, did not possess necessary educational qualifications. However, taking note of the fact that she had completed the age of 45 years, she was found eligible. This is how, she was promoted. She acquired the age of 45 on 2/2/2001. It is to be noted that the cadre promotion was first time introduced with effect from 3/3/2001. The second petitioner claims that she should have been promoted with effect from 3/3/2001 as Superintendent in the light of Exhibit-P10. She refers to Exhibit- P17 order by which probation period was reduced so as to give effect of immediate promotion to higher category. The petitioner also points out to Exhibit-P18, an order passed by the Managing Director of Matsyafed giving promotion to personnels in other cadre with effect from 3/3/2001. Exhibit P18 would show that the personnels in other cadre have been promoted with effect from 3/3/2001 to the post of Assistant Manager then to Deputy Manager and then to the post of Manager. The said proceedings were issued on 12/10/2001. Therefore it is clear that taking note  of the qualification of the personnels as on 3/3/2001, i.e. the date of introduction of the cadre promotion, retrospective promotions were given to personnels in other cadres. Exhibit P19 is also a similar order passed in the matter of Accounts Officer. However, after giving promotion to all these personnels, monetary benefits were restricted from 25/6/2010.