9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Delay and laches in filing the claim petition. 2. Entitlement to promotion and consequential benefits. 3. Validity of ad hoc promotion and its cancellation. Summary: 1. Delay and Laches in Filing the Claim Petition: The Supreme Court addressed whether the Respondents could maintain a claim petition after nearly two decades since the junior employee, Madhav Singh Tadagi, was given ad hoc promotion on 15.11.1983. The Court emphasized that the Respondents were aware of the promotion but chose not to challenge it for six years and only approached the tribunal in 2003. The Court cited precedents, including *C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining* and *Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar*, to assert that stale claims or dead grievances do not give rise to a fresh cause of action merely by submitting representations. The Court concluded that the Respondents' delay in challenging the promotion was unjustifiable and that the tribunal and High Court failed to appreciate the significance of delay and laches. 2. Entitlement to Promotion and Consequential Benefits: The Respondents claimed entitlement to promotion from SAS Group III to SAS Group II from the date their junior was promoted on an ad hoc basis. The tribunal and High Court had directed that the Respondents be given notional promotional benefits from 15.11.1983. However, the Supreme Court held that while the Respondents could have challenged the ad hoc promotion at the relevant time, their failure to do so within a reasonable period negated their claim. The Court reiterated that the principle of equality and equitability in promotions must be claimed within a reasonable time, as established in *Ghulam Rasool Lone v. State of Jammu and Kashmir* and *New Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh*. 3. Validity of Ad Hoc Promotion and Its Cancellation: The Court noted that the ad hoc promotion of Madhav Singh Tadagi had been canceled by the competent authority during the pendency of the special leave petition, and this cancellation was under challenge before the High Court. The Supreme Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the cancellation's validity, as the matter was sub-judice. The Court emphasized that the tribunal and High Court's decisions to grant notional promotional benefits to the Respondents were unsustainable in law due to the significant delay in filing the claim. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the orders of the High Court and the tribunal. The Court held that the Respondents' claim was barred by delay and laches and that the directions to grant notional promotional benefits were unjustified. The appeals were allowed with no order as to costs.
|
