TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Promotions cannot be withheld indefinitely based on mere allegations. Court emphasizes fairness and notional promotions.</h1> <h3>Coal India Ltd. & Ors Versus Saroj Kumar Mishra</h3> Coal India Ltd. & Ors Versus Saroj Kumar Mishra - (2007) AIR 1706, 2007 (5) SCR 233, 2007 (9) SCC 625, 2007 (6) JT 6, 2007 (5) SCALE 724 Issues Involved:1. Validity of withholding promotions due to pending vigilance cases.2. Interpretation of office memorandums dated 27.6.1979 and 8.1.1981.3. Applicability of the sealed cover procedure.4. Entitlement to notional promotion and consequential benefits.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Withholding Promotions Due to Pending Vigilance Cases:The respondents, employees of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., were not promoted due to pending vigilance cases. The High Court held that promotions could not be withheld indefinitely based on pending inquiries without formal charges. The Supreme Court affirmed this, stating that an employee's right to be considered for promotion cannot be withheld solely based on allegations unless the conditions in the office memorandums are met.2. Interpretation of Office Memorandums Dated 27.6.1979 and 8.1.1981:The office memorandum dated 27.6.1979 required vigilance clearance for promotions but did not clearly define the stage at which vigilance inquiries should affect promotions. The subsequent memorandum dated 8.1.1981 clarified that vigilance clearance should not be withheld merely due to preliminary inquiries unless a charge sheet was likely to be issued or prosecution was sanctioned. The Supreme Court emphasized that these conditions must be strictly satisfied before withholding promotions.3. Applicability of the Sealed Cover Procedure:The High Court invoked the sealed cover procedure, which the appellants argued was inapplicable. The Supreme Court, however, found that the High Court correctly applied the procedure, as the respondents were entitled to promotion once the preliminary inquiry did not result in formal charges within a reasonable time. The Court noted that the sealed cover procedure aims to prevent indefinite delays in promotions due to prolonged inquiries.4. Entitlement to Notional Promotion and Consequential Benefits:The High Court granted notional promotion to the respondents from the date their juniors were promoted, along with all consequential benefits. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, stating that once the sealed cover is opened and the employee is promoted, they are entitled to all service and financial benefits retrospectively. The Court also noted that the respondents were never suspended during the inquiries, further justifying their entitlement to notional promotion.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court's judgment. It held that the respondents were entitled to notional promotion and consequential benefits from the date their juniors were promoted, as the conditions for withholding promotions were not met. The Court emphasized the need for fairness and reasonableness in the actions of state entities, in line with the constitutional scheme of equality. The appeals were dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 50,000/-.
TaxTMI 