https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189469 Retrospective promotion could not be claimed as a writ entitlement where the benefit sought depended on ad hoc concessions rather than any enforceable service rule or settled policy. The Court treated earlier promotions extended to other batches as isolated indulgences, not a consistent legal standard capable of creating a right to similar treatment, and rejected the Article 14 discrimination claim. It also noted the challenge was raised after substantial delay, with no justification for the petitioners' inaction. On that basis, mandamus for retrospective Assistant Engineer promotion and seniority relief was refused. en-us Mon, 07 Nov 1966 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Jan 2017 17:26:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189469 Retrospective promotion could not be claimed as a writ entitlement where the benefit sought depended on ad hoc concessions rather than any enforceable service rule or settled policy. The Court treated earlier promotions extended to other batches as isolated indulgences, not a consistent legal standard capable of creating a right to similar treatment, and rejected the Article 14 discrimination claim. It also noted the challenge was raised after substantial delay, with no justification for the petitioners' inaction. On that basis, mandamus for retrospective Assistant Engineer promotion and seniority relief was refused. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 07 Nov 1966 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189469