LexK. SAMBA MOORTHY versus SANJIV CHADHA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 998 : 2025 INSC 110 K. Samba Moorthy v. Sanjiv Chadha & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 1023 of 2025) 27 January 2025 [B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether respondents should have granted the benefit of promotion from MMG/Scale-II to MMG/Scale-III with effect from 28.07.2001 with all monetary benefits to the appellant. Headnotes† Service Law – Benefit of promotion – Monetary benefits – A disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the appellant – The appellant participated in the exercise for promotion from MMG/ S-II to MMG/S-III and that his promotion was kept in abeyance – After a detailed enquiry, a minor penalty of reduction in pay for 3 years was imposed on appellant – Promotion that was kept in abeyance stood cancelled – Writ Petition – Pending writ petition, in the year 2012, the appellant was promoted from Scale-II to Scale-III – The Single judge of the High Court set aside the disciplinary proceedings and ordered that appellant was entitled to all consequential benefits – In writ appeal, since appellant retired, only question of law was left open – Appellant submitted a representation claiming, restoration of pay since the penalty was set aside and promotion from Scale-II to Scale-III from July, 2001 and monetary benefits – Contempt petition filed against respondents-contemnors – The contemnors replied that they have released the amount of Rs.19,446/- being the reduction in pay for 3 years: Held: Admittedly, the only compliance made by the respondents was to pay the amount of Rs.19,446/- being the reduction in pay for three years – The Single Judge of the High Court set aside the disciplinary proceedings on a ground for which the appellant was * Author [2025] 1 S.C.R. 999 K. Samba Moorthy v. Sanjiv Chadha & Ors. not at fault – A junior officer, who was competing for promotion with the appellant, was made the enquiry officer and a clear case of likelihood of bias was made out by the appellant and it was accepted by the Single Judge – The employer Bank did not even contest this position before the Division Bench and merely wanted the question of law to be left open – The appellant was not at fault for the defect in the enquiry – No fresh enquiry was initiated nor was any liberty sought from the Division Bench – In this scenario, appellant cannot be denied the benefit of promotion from 28.07.2001 when he was ordered to be promoted – On the facts of this case, relief will be encompassed in the phrase “consequential benefits” which the Single Judge clearly granted. [Paras 24, 25, 26] Case Law Cited C.O. Arumugam & Ors. v. State of T.N. & Ors. (1991) Supp. 2 SCC 199; Union of India & Ors. v. K.V. Jankiraman & Ors. [1991] 3 SCR 790 : (1991) 4 SCC 109; Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal & Anr. [2008] 14 SCR 621 : (2008) 17 SCC 491; Chaduranga Kanthraj URS and Anr. v. P. Ravi Kumar & Ors., 2024 INSC 957; Govt. of West Bengal & Ors. v. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors., 2024 INSC 906 – referred to. List of Keywords Service Law; Benefit of promotion; Monetary benefits; Contempt Petition; Consequential Benefits; Writ Appeal, Disciplinary Proceedings; Reduction of pay; Restoration of pay. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1023 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 24.08.2023 of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in CONTC No. 311 of 2023 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Abhijit Basu, Sr. Adv., Ms. Tatini Basu, Byrapaneni Suyodhan, Kumar Shashank. Advs. for the Respondents: Ms. Praveena Gautam, Pawan Shukla, Ms. Tissy Annie Thomas, Ms. Akanksha Tyagi. 1000 [2025] 1 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment K.V. Viswanathan, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeal calls in question the correctness of the final judgment and order dated 24.08.2023 passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in Contempt Case No. 311 of 2023. By the said judgment, the High Court dismissed the Contempt Petition holding that the orders the violation of which, was complained of, have been duly complied with by the alleged contemnor-respondents. The High Court further held that promotion up to Scale-V cannot be granted as there was no adjudication in the order of the Writ Court and further that the cancellation of the promotion order had not been challenged. The High Court noted that such reliefs cannot be granted in the contempt case
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.