Government employee can't seek promotion after refusing it: Supreme Court
PrintListen to this Article
A government employee, whose promotion is canceled owing to his refusal to accept it, cannot ask for it at a later stage, the Supreme Court has said.
The apex court set aside the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had directed the state government to restore the promotion of one of its employees whose promotion was cancelled after he turned down the offer as he did not want to get transfered to some other place.
"As we find that it is the respondent himself who is responsible for cancellation of the promotion order as he did not join the promoted post, the impugned order of the high court is clearly erroneous and against the law," a bench headed by Justice J Chelameswar said.
The court passed the order on an appeal filed by Madhya Pradesh government challenging the high court order.
The government had submitted that the high court failed to consider that Ramanand Pandey himself sent back the promotion order and continued on his post and approached the court after two years when it cancelled his promotion.
It said that at the time of promotion, Pandey was posted in Bhind district where he remained for almost 15 years and his intention was to stay at that place only.
The apex court, after hearing both sides, quashed the high court order.
"It is clear that he wanted to remain in Bhind district, where he had continued since 1990, as he was ready to go on leave instead of joining the place of transfer. Moreover, for more than two years from the date of cancellation of the order of promotion, the respondent kept totally mum and maintained stoic silence.
"There was not even a semblance of protest as to why his promotion order was cancelled or that he wanted to join the promotion post after the alleged inquiry into the so-called complaint was over. He filed the writ petition on October 24, 2008, i.e. almost two years after cancellation of his promotion order," it said. (PTI-ET)
Category : General | Comments : 0 | Hits : 533
Retirement fund body EPFO has said it will no longer use Aadhaar as a valid document for proof of date of birth. In an official circular on January 16, the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) said the decision to remove Aadhaar was taken following a directive from the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). As per the circular, Aadhaar is also being removed from the list of documents for correction in date of birth.
A five-day-long Special Parliament Session will be held from Monday. A Parliamentary Bulletin said, that on the first day a discussion on the Parliamentary Journey of 75 years starting from Samvidhan Sabha - Achievements, Experiences, Memories, and Learnings will be held in Lok Sabha. The Government has listed Bill on the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner, and other election commissioners in the upcoming Parliament Session. Apart from this The Advocates (Amendment) Bill, Th...
Artificial intelligence can substitute neither the human intelligence nor the humane element in the adjudicatory process, the Delhi high court has held and said ChatGPT can't be the basis of adjudication of legal or factual issues in a court of law. Justice Prathiba M Singh stated that the accuracy and reliability of AI generated data is still in the grey area and at best, such a tool can be utilised for a preliminary understanding or for preliminary research. The court's observati...
Domain + Website + Hosting + 2 email ids @ Just Rs.3100/- with 30 days Money Back Guarantee. CASANSAAR offers a Golden opportunity for Professionals, where they could create their own stunning website with multiple designs and templates to choose. It will be completely your own space, which is going to be a Dynamic Website and could be edited as per your wish. Now Get 2 Email ID's with Your Own Websi...
The Delhi High Court Monday sought the Centre’s stand in a plea against a notification where chartered accountants, company secretaries and cost accountants have been included among “reporting entities” under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula granted time to Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, who appeared for the Centre, to “seek instructions” and listed the ma...
Comments