LexNIRMAL CHANDRA SINHA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 635 ""1 NIRMAL CHANDRA SINHA A v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 8058 of 2001) MARCH 31, 2008 B (H.K. SEMA AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.) Service Law: Promotion and seniority - Grant of - Held: Promotion taken effect from the date of being granted and not from the c date of occurrence of vacancy thereof - In the present case, in terms of the Rules, two years regular service in the lower post required before consideration for promotion - Rules cannot be violated - Hence, High Court erred in allowing notional promotion to the incumbent as he had not put in D requisite service of two years in the lower post. ~- Appellant was promoted to the post of General Manager in the Indian Railways on 29.11.1996. His claim ~ for notional. promotion w.e.f.13.3.1996 with consequential E benefits including seniority was rejected by the authorities. He filed an Original Application before the Central ~ Administrative Tribunal, which was rejected by the Tribunal. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition which was partly allowed by the High Court granting him notional promotion to the post of General Manager w.e.f. F 13.7.96 but rejected his prayer for granting him seniority above respondent Nos. 3 & 4. Hence the present appeals were filed, both by the appellant as well as the Union of India. Allowing the appeal filed by the Union of India and G dismissing the appeal filed by the employee, the Court HELD: 1.1 It has been held in a series of decisions of } this Court that a promotion takes effect from the date of 635 H 636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R. A being granted and not from the date of occurrence of vacancy or creation of the post. (Para - 7) [638-8] Union of India and others vs. K.K. Vadera and Others 1989 Supp (2) SCC 625; State of Uttaranchal and Another B vs. Dinesh Kumar Sharma 2007 (1) SCC 683; K. V Subba Rao vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh 1988(2) SCC 201 and Sanjay K. Sinha & others vs. State of Bihar and others 2004 (1 O) sec 734 etc.- relied on. 1.2 When the rule requires two years' actual service c in the lower post before a person can be considered for promotion as General Manager, that rule cannot be violated by considering a person who has not put in two years' service in the lower post. (Para - 9) [638-F-G] Union of India vs. B. S. Agarwal and another 1997 (8) SCC D 89 - distinguished. 2. In the present case, the appellant was promoted as General Manager on 29.11.1996, but he claimed that he should be deemed to have been promoted w.e.f.13.3.1996 E with consequential benefits. This relief cannot be granted to him. It is settled law that the date of occurrence of vacancy is not relevant for the purpose of promotion. (Para - 10) [639-8] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. F 8058 of 2001. - - From the final Judgment and Judgment dated 14112/1999 ,. , G of the High of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P. No. 25555/1998. WITH Civil Appeal No. 8059/2001. Siddharth Dave, Arvind Varma, Jamtiben AO and Sumita Ray for the Appellant. H Dr. R.G. Padia, Shalini Kumari and Anil Katiyar for the NIRMAL CHANDRA SINHA v. UNION OF !NOIA & ORS. 637 [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J.] ~ Respondents. A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ' MARKANDEY KAT JU, J. 1. These two connected ' " 'Opeals have been filed against the impugned judgment ofthe ,,ndhra Pradesh High Court dated 14.12.1999 in Writ Petition B + No. 25555 of 1998. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Appellant Nirmal Chandra Sinha belongs to the Indian c Railway Service of Mechanical Engineers (IRSME) having been appointed on 2.5.1958. When his turn came for consideration for promotion as General Manager, he was working as Chief Mechanical Engineer of Southern Eastern Railway. He was ' promoted to the post of General Manager on 29.11.1996. He D ( claimed notional promotion w.e.f. 13.3.1996 with consequential i, -t benefits. His O.A. was rejected by the Central Administrative Tribunal, but against that order he filed a writ petition which was partially allowed by the High Court. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment of the High Court E ~ appeals were filed both by appellant Nirmal Chandra Sinha as well as the Union of India. 5. In the appeal filed by appellant Nirmal Chandra Sinha, the ground taken was that the High Court partially allowed the F writ petition by giving him notional p
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.