https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184862 A petitioner who had earlier sought retrospective promotion to the Indian Administrative Service under Article 226, but expressly did not press that relief after accepting the Government's undertaking on a related promotion issue, could not later revive the same abandoned claim in a fresh Article 32 petition. The Court treated the earlier abandonment as decisive and declined to reopen the matter on the facts. It also noted that, after more than two decades, it would not be just to place the clock back and reconsider the claim for retrospective promotion. en-us Thu, 06 Dec 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Jul 2016 16:32:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184862 A petitioner who had earlier sought retrospective promotion to the Indian Administrative Service under Article 226, but expressly did not press that relief after accepting the Government's undertaking on a related promotion issue, could not later revive the same abandoned claim in a fresh Article 32 petition. The Court treated the earlier abandonment as decisive and declined to reopen the matter on the facts. It also noted that, after more than two decades, it would not be just to place the clock back and reconsider the claim for retrospective promotion. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 06 Dec 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184862