STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ANOTHER versus SRI SHIV CHARAN SINGH BHANDARI AND OTHERS

Citation: [2013] 9 S.C.R. 609 · Decided: 23-08-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIL R. DAVE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 9 S.C.R. 609 
STATE OF UTIARANCHAL AND ANOTHER 
v. 
SRI SHIV CHARAN SINGH BHANDARI AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal Nos.7328-7329 of 2013) 
AUGUST 23, 2013. 
[ANIL R. DAVE AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
SERVICE LAW: 
A 
B 
Ad hoc promotion - Granted to junior - Held: A senior c 
has right to be considered even for adhoc promotion -- If 
seniors are eligible as per the rules and there is no legal 
justification to ignore them, the employer, at his whim or 
caprice, cannot extend the promotional benefit to a junior on 
ad hoc basis. 
Ad hoc promotion - Granted to junior - Belated claim by 
seniors to promote them from the date their junior was granted 
D 
ad hoc promotion - However on regular promotion, their 
seniority in promotional post maintained - Held: Though 
claim of promotion is based on the concept of equality and E 
equitabifity, relief has to be claimed within a reasonable time 
-- In the instant case, cause of action had arisen for assailing 
the order when junior employee was promoted on ad hoc basis 
-- A stale claim of getting promotional benefits should not 
have been entertained by Tribunal and accepted by High 
F 
Court -- Direction given by Tribunal which has been concurred 
with by High Court, being unsustainable in law, is set aside -
Delayl/aches. 
Service matters - Limitation - Held: The issue of G 
limitation or delay and /aches should be considered with 
reference to the original cause of action -- A mere submission 
of representation to competent authority does not arrest time. 
609 
H 
610 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
One of the juniors to the respondents, namely, 'MS' 
was given ad hoc promotion from Subordinate 
Agricultural Services (SAS) Group Ill to SAS Group II, by 
the Deputy Director of Agriculture on 15.11.1983. 
Thereafter the respondents and 'MS' were promoted on 
B 
regular basis in Group II posts. In the final seniority list 
issued on 12.2.1994 in respect of promotional cadre, the 
respondents were shown senior to 'MS'. On 14.10.2003, 
the respondents filed a petition before the Public Services 
Tribunal claiming that they were entitled to promotion 
c from SAS Group Ill to SAS Group II with effect from 
15.11.1983, the date on which their junior, 'MS', was 
promoted and, accordingly, to get their pay fixed along 
with other consequential benefits. The Tribunal allowed 
the claim and held that the respondents would be entitled 
0 
to notional promotional benefits from 15.11.1983. The 
High Court upheld the order. 
In the instant appeals filed by the State Government, 
it was contended for the appellants that both, the Tribunal 
and the High Court, failed to appreciate that the claim of 
E the respondents was hit by the doctrine of delay and 
laches. It was submitted that the grant of notional 
promotion along with other consequential benefits to the 
respondents solely on the ground that the junior 
functioned in the promotional post from a prior date, was 
F 
not justified. The respondents, on the other hand, 
contended that they had been submitting representations 
since 1984 till they approached the Tribunal. 
G 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. If senior incumbents are eligible as per the 
rules and there is no legal justification to ignore them, the 
employer cannot extend the promotional benefit to a junior 
on ad hoc basis at his whim or caprice; and the person 
aggrieved can always challenge the same in an 
H appropriate forum, for he has a right to be considered even 
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL v. SHIV CHARAN SINGH 611 
BHANDARI 
for ad hoc promotion and a junior cannot be allowed to A 
march over him solely on the ground that the promotion 
granted is ad hoc in nature. [para 12] [617-D-F] 
1.2. Although the claim of promotion is based on the 
concept of equality and equitability, yet the relief has to 
8 
be claimed within a reasonable time. [Para 19] [620-C-D] 
Ghu/am Rasool Lone v. State of Jammu and Kashmir 
and another 2009 (1 O) SCR 591 = (2009) 15 sec 321; New 
Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh and others 2007 (3) 
SCR 711 = (2007) 9 SCC 278; P. S. Sadasivasway v. State C 
of Tamil Nadu 1975 (2)SCR 356 = (1975) 1 SCC 152 - relied 
on 
1.3. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should 
be considered with reference to the original cause of 0 
action and not with reference to the date on which an 
order is passed in compliance with a court's direction. 
Even if the court or tribunal directs for consideration of 
representations relating to a st

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.