TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the delay in filing the appeals deserved condonation on the ground of sufficient cause and substantial justice. (ii) Whether seniority and consequential promotion could be claimed on the basis of an officiating or stop-gap promotion, and whether parity could be claimed from an illegal or irregular benefit granted to another employee. (iii) Whether the relief granted by the High Court could be sustained, or whether the Court should mould relief to protect settled service benefits already conferred.
Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the appeals deserved condonation on the ground of sufficient cause and substantial justice.
Analysis: The Court applied the liberal approach governing condonation of delay under the limitation law and emphasised that the expression "sufficient cause" must receive a pragmatic construction to advance substantial justice. The State's explanation, viewed in the background of the wide repercussions of the impugned judgments and the need to secure a decision on merits, was accepted.
Conclusion: The delay was rightly condoned.
Issue (ii): Whether seniority and consequential promotion could be claimed on the basis of an officiating or stop-gap promotion, and whether parity could be claimed from an illegal or irregular benefit granted to another employee.
Analysis: The Court held that an officiating or ad hoc promotion, especially one made with an express stipulation that it would not confer seniority until regular selection, cannot be treated as the basis for claiming seniority over persons regularly or substantively promoted under the applicable service rules. The Court further held that Article 14 does not permit negative equality and that a wrong benefit granted to one employee cannot be used to compel repetition of the same illegality in favour of others.
Conclusion: The claims to seniority and promotion on that basis were rejected.
Issue (iii): Whether the relief granted by the High Court could be sustained, or whether the Court should mould relief to protect settled service benefits already conferred.
Analysis: The Court found the High Court's orders unsustainable as they were contrary to the service rules and had the effect of unsettling a large number of senior officers. At the same time, in order to avoid hardship and disturbance of accrued service positions, the Court protected the promotions and cadre position already obtained by the concerned respondent, while refusing to extend the benefit to others similarly situated through the impugned judgments.
Conclusion: The impugned judgments were set aside, but already conferred service benefits were protected to the limited extent directed by the Court.
Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded on merits, the High Court's directions were set aside, and the Court preserved existing promotions already earned while denying any claim to repeat the same benefit on the basis of an unlawful precedent.
Ratio Decidendi: Seniority cannot be claimed from an officiating or stop-gap promotion made contrary to the service rules or subject to a stipulation excluding seniority, and Article 14 cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegality by demanding equal treatment in a wrong order or benefit.
TaxTMI 
