Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.19 seconds)
Rishal Singh, Asi vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi Through ... on 7 January, 2008 cites

Bishamber Dayal vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi And Ors. on 17 September, 2003

4. The only discordant view expressed by the respondents either in the pleadings contained in the counter reply or in the submissions made by Shri Luthra during the course of arguments in opposing the claim of the applicant is that for actual promotion to the post of Sub Inspector, one has necessarily to undergo the upper school course, which the applicant had not undergone and his mere admission in promotion list E-1 (Exe.) would not entitle him for promotion to the post under contention. We would have dealt with this issue in the context of the facts and circumstances of this case and rule 16 of the 1980 Rules aforesaid, but since the matter is no more res integra, there would be no need to go into the same. This Tribunal while dealing with a similar controversy in OA No.1186/2002 Bishamber Dayal v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. decided on 31.12.2002, held that It is without doubt that had the applicant not been dismissed due to the conviction, which was considered to be wrongful by the Hon'ble High Court, he would have continued in service and, therefore, received his opportunity, to attend the Upper School Course in accordance with his seniority, and duly promoted. Now that the applicant has retired, it would be unfair to ask him to pass that course. In fact, his reinstatement was very shortly before his ultimate superannuation and at that late age he could not be expected to pass a course being kept out of duty for nearly 15 years. We find no justification in refusing him this benefit, which is definitely a part of consequential benefits that he should have received. The only difference on facts in the present case and the one subject matter of the OA aforesaid, is that whereas in the present case the applicant on his involvement in a criminal case was not dismissed, it appears that in OA No. 1186/2002 the applicant was dismissed from service, which order was set at naught on his acquittal from the High court.
Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - M Mudgal - Full Document
1