9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Promotion policy interpretation, application of bye-law 71(b)(ii), categorization of staff, tribunal's jurisdiction, exercise of power under Article 136.
Promotion Policy Interpretation: The respondent, a civil engineer, was not considered for promotion for nearly two decades, leading him to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking relief. The Tribunal allowed his claim based on bye-law 71(b)(ii) which the appellant challenged in the Supreme Court. Application of Bye-law 71(b)(ii): Bye-law 71(b)(ii) pertains to the promotion of scientific and technical staff, assessing their merit for promotion after specific periods. The Tribunal extended the benefit of this bye-law to the respondent, a civil engineer, despite not being engaged in scientific work. The Court noted that the bye-law only applies to staff engaged in scientific work, excluding those in administrative roles like the respondent. Categorization of Staff: The reclassification of staff categories by the appellant led to civil engineers being placed under the 'administrative' category, causing discontent and protests. Despite attempts to reclassify them as 'technical,' no promotional benefits were extended until a new scheme was introduced. The Court highlighted the importance of providing opportunities for career advancement to employees, emphasizing the need for a fair promotion system. Tribunal's Jurisdiction: The Administrative Tribunals Act established service Tribunals as final arbiters of service-related disputes, emphasizing the importance of tribunalization of justice in service matters. The Court acknowledged the Tribunal's role in resolving such disputes without strict adherence to procedural rules, with finality given to their decisions. Exercise of Power under Article 136: While the Court retains the power to intervene under Article 136, it generally refrains from interfering in individual disputes unless there is manifest injustice or a substantial public interest. In this case, despite disagreeing with the interpretation of bye-law 71(b)(ii), the Court declined to overturn the relief granted to the respondent after years of stagnation in the same position. In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision to grant relief to the respondent without awarding costs, considering the prolonged lack of promotion opportunities and the principles of substantial justice in service matters.
|
