Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (2.08 seconds)
Labh Singh vs Comm. Of Police on 16 December, 2015 cites

Si Umesh Barthwal vs Gnct Of Delhi Through Lt. Governor on 1 June, 2010

In other words, no one can have right to promotion including OTP with effect from the date of availability of the vacancy and promotion become effective either from the date of DPC or assuming the charge of the post, whichever is later. We reject the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the view taken by Hon'ble High Court in para 12 of the order has the ramification that the promotion of the applicant should be antedated. Nevertheless, we are convinced that once in OA 2536/2011 this Tribunal had taken a view that the applicant is entitled to the benefit of judgment of Hon'ble High Court in WP (C) no.5444/2010 and finally in WP (C) No.5203/2012 etc. etc. (Umesh Barthwal Vs. GNCTD & Ors) decided on March 06,2013, it could be viewed that the recommendation of Incentive Committee regarding OTP should not be limited to the vacancy during the relevant year but should be held valid against the vacancy during subsequent years also and in implementation of the said judgment, the respondents have granted him promotion from retrospective date, similar benefits cannot be denied to applicant. Once the respondents could take a view that Mr. Umesh Barthwal was entitled to retrospective promotion on the ground that his co-team were given OTP from such date, the applicant cannot be denied similar benefits. In fact, parity should be drawn not in between co-team mate alone, but in between all those who are recommended for OTP by Incentive Committee. In other words, those in respect of whom the recommendation of Incentive Committee is approved earlier should be given preference in OTP and those who were recommended later should be considered for OTP thereafter.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 12 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1