AnyTV Bureau, New Delhi.
Published by: Jeet Kumar
Updated Wed, 09 Mar 2022 02:48 AM IST
Summary
The top court has said that the right of promotion and subsequent benefits and seniority will be determined only by the rules governing the said promotion and not by a separate rule.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that mere availability of vacancies does not entitle an employee to retrospective promotion when the vacancies in respect of posts to be filled by promotion are prescribed under special rules. The relevant special rules also include the approval given through the selection process.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundaresh said, “There can never be equality between two different rules in the matter of promotion. The top court has said that the right of promotion and subsequent benefits and seniority will be determined only by the rules governing the said promotion and not by a separate rule.
The bench allowed the appeal filed by the Center questioning a decision of the High Court. The Center contended that the High Court had committed a fundamental error in granting relief in favor of an officer, who retired voluntarily in the year 2010, while the promotion was granted after the completion of the selection process in the year 2012 against the vacancies arising in the year 2011. Was.
The matter pertained to the promotion of Junior Administrative Grade-I officers as IAS. Agreeing to the Centre’s plea, the bench said, “Once an officer voluntarily retires, the judicial relationship of ‘golden handshake’ between the employer and the employee ceases to exist.” Such ex-employees cannot argue about their past and future rights.
Expansion
The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that mere availability of vacancies does not entitle an employee to retrospective promotion when the vacancies in respect of posts to be filled by promotion are prescribed under special rules. The relevant special rules also include the approval given through the selection process.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundaresh said, “There can never be equality between two different rules in the matter of promotion. The top court has said that the right of promotion and subsequent benefits and seniority will be determined only by the rules governing the said promotion and not by a separate rule.
The bench allowed the appeal filed by the Center questioning a decision of the High Court. The Center contended that the High Court had committed a fundamental error in granting relief in favor of an officer, who retired voluntarily in the year 2010, while the promotion was granted after the completion of the selection process in the year 2012 against the vacancies arising in the year 2011. Was.
The matter pertained to the promotion of Junior Administrative Grade-I officers as IAS. Agreeing to the Centre’s plea, the bench said, “Once an officer voluntarily retires, the judicial relationship of ‘golden handshake’ between the employer and the employee ceases to exist.” Such ex-employees cannot argue about their past and future rights.