Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.62 seconds)The Government Of West Bengal & Ors vs Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors on 1 February, 2023
In the case of Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra), the employee
was though not granted retrospective promotion after his
superannuation by the Hon'ble High Court at Culcutta yet
he was granted notional financial benefits for the
promotional post. But the Hon'ble Apex Court quashed the
order of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta and specifically
considered and dealt with the question "whether respondent
no. 1, who was recommended for the promotion before his
retirement but did not receive actual promotion to the
higher post due to administrative delays, is entitled to
notional financial benefits of the promotional post after his
retirement?" Thus, the Hon'ble Apex Court held
employee not entitled even to notional financial
benefits for the promotional post despite been
recommended for promotion before superannuation
and also noticing the administrative delay in actually
giving him promotion. It needs to be stressed that in
that case, the employee was held fit for promotion and was
recommended for promotion to Public Service Commission
before his retirement but the department received the final
approval for his promotion by 04" January, 2017 whereas
he superannuated on 30" December, 2016 i.e. barely 04
days prior. Even in such case, the Hon'ble Apex Court
declined the relief on the ground that his promotion was not
Digitally signed by NATHU
NATHU LAL LAL KUMAWAT
Reason: your signing
reason here
KUMAWAT Date: 2025.08.01 14:16:23
+05'30'
12
OA No. 601/2016, OA No. 320/2015, OA No. 708/2015, OA No. 269/2016 and OA No. 575/2016
effectuated as he could not assume the responsibilities of a
promoted post because he retired prior to that.
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ajay Kumar Shukla vs Arvind Rai on 8 December, 2021
In
this context, we may profitably cite a recent decision in
Ajay Kumar Shukla v. Arvind Rai, (2022) 12 SCC 579
where, citing earlier precedents in Director, Lift
Irrigation Corporation Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty,
(1991) 2 SCC 295 and Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab,
(1999) 7 SCC 209,, a three-Judge Bench observed thus:
Director, Lift Irrigation Corporation ... vs Pravat Kiran Mohanty And Ors on 12 February, 1991
In
this context, we may profitably cite a recent decision in
Ajay Kumar Shukla v. Arvind Rai, (2022) 12 SCC 579
where, citing earlier precedents in Director, Lift
Irrigation Corporation Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty,
(1991) 2 SCC 295 and Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab,
(1999) 7 SCC 209,, a three-Judge Bench observed thus:
State Of Bihar And Others Etc vs Akhouri Sachindra Nath And Others Etc on 19 April, 1991
In State of Bihar v. Akhouri Sachindra
Nath, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 334, it was held that
retrospective seniority cannot be given to an
employee from a date when he was not even borne
in the cadre, nor can seniority be given with
retrospective effect as that might adversely affect
others.
Keshav Chandra Joshi And Ors. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 6 November, 1990
The same view was reiterated in Keshav
Chandra Joshi v. Union of India, reported in
1992 Supp (1) SCC 272, where it was held that
when a quota is provided for, then the seniority of
the employee would be reckoned from the date
when the vacancy arises in the quota and not from
any anterior date of promotion or subsequent date
of confirmation. xxxxx
XXXXX
Bihar State Electricity Board vs Dharamdeo Das on 17 November, 2014
In this regard, we
may gainfully refer to a recent decision of this Court in the case
of Bihar State Electricity Board and Others v. Dharamdeo
Das, 2024 SCC Online SC 1768, wherein it was observed as
follows:
Jai Prakash Padwar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 July, 2021
10. After going through the above mentioned judgments,
the crux of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court
and followed by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh
at Amaravati in the case of Illa Ananda Nivas (supra) and
Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in the case of
Jai Prakash Padwar (supra) is that the promotion only
becomes effective on assumption of the duties of the
promoted post.
Illa Ananda Nivas,Eg Dist vs Asst.Commissioner,Eg Dist, Another on 16 August, 2022
In other words, the promotion has to
be effectuated and to do so, the employee has to be
in service so that he can actually assume the duties
on the promotional post and since the Hon'ble High Court
of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in the above cited
judgment in Illa Ananda Nivas (supra) has emphasized that
"Even assuming that the petitioner is entitled for promotion
as claimed by him, he is not entitled to retrospective
financial benefits, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court (referred supra)."
1