turn promotion in Armed Police as Head Constable. The petitioner submits that the petitioner was recommended for out of turn promotion for the work, which ... petitioner was transferred to Armed Police, therefore, the petitioner was given wrongly promotion as Head Constable (Armed Police) vide its order dated 13.4.2001. The same
accepted for the sake of arguments that he was wrongly given promotion in the scale of Rs. 1600-2660.The relevant portion of the Notification
means qualifying service. Shri K.B. Rajoria was wrongly superseded on 22.2.1995. The notional promotion was given to him retrospectively and from that date ... could be given promotion and to set aside her promotion, and if she was wrongly given promotion, instead of perpetuating illegality.
27. The Office Memorandum
issued by DIOS. Another Teacher Shiv Poojan Singh, who was also given wrong promotion in L. T. Grade, was reverted to his post
wrong promotion to the post of Draftman. The petitioner submitted reply to the said notice on 19.09.2022 denying the fact that he was wrongly given ... counter affidavit, there is no denial of fact that petitioner got wrong promotion to the post of Draftman for which he is not responsible. Further
promotion order dated 7.7.1997 to the post of Manager Marketing and Economic Investigator by which persons junior to him have been granted benefits of promotion ... categorically stated that the petitioner has wrongly been given promotion in anticipation of the vacancy and as such, his appointment on the post of Manager
fault. It was a time bound promotion which was given to him and some eleven years thereafter, the Authorities of the Bihar ... Government woke up and according to them the time bound promotion was wrongly given and then the relevant rules are being relied upon and that
Central Administrative Tribunal had given liberty to the department only to protect those, who were wrongly promoted. It was left to the discretion ... further seeking recovery of the amount paid on account of wrong promotion. The decision of BSNAL does not suffer from any illegality. The mistake
Tribunal on this issue,
"The promotions were not given on merits, but were given to pamper one association at the cost of the rival ... same terms of employment which have been given to the 11 workmen who had been given promotion with effect from 1st August, 1957".
Thus
Ram Babu Yadav & 93 Ors. vs State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Home
