Union of India and Others vs Chaman Rana

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

12 March 2018

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 2763 of 2018

Result

Allowed

Bench

Arun Mishra, Navin Sinha

Citation

[2018] 3 S.C.R. 640 : 2018 INSC 230

Headnote

Service law: Promotion – Delayed claim for retrospective consideration for promotion from the date of supersession i.e. from the date their junior had been promoted – Repeated representations – Delay in approaching court – Held: In service matters, especially with regard to promotion, there is always an urgency – The aggrieved must approach the Court at the earliest opportunity, or within a reasonable time thereafter as third party rights accrue in the meantime to those who are subsequently promoted – Mere repeated filing of representations could not be sufficient explanation for delay in approaching the Court for grant of relief – Any direction to consider retrospective promotion of the respondents at a belated passage of time of over 17 to 20 years, would cause serious administrative chaos quite apart from the financial implications for the government – Claim not maintainable – Delay/laches. Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. The cause of action first arose to the respondents on the date of initial supersession and again on the date when rejection of their representation was communicated to them, or within reasonable time thereafter. The aggrieved must approach the Court at the earliest opportunity, or within a reasonable time thereafter as third party rights accrue in the meantime to those who are subsequently promoted. Such persons continue to work on the promotional post, ensconced in their belief of the protection available to them in service with regard to seniority. Any belated interference with the same is bound to have adverse effect on those already promoted affecting their morale in service also. Additionally, any directions at a belated stage to consider others for promotion with retrospective effect, after considerable time is bound to have serious administrative implications apart from the financial burden on the government that would follow by such orders of promotion. [Para 9] [644-F-G; 645-A]

P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. The State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152 : [1975] 2 SCR 356 – relied on.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by NAVIN SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. These two appeals arise from a common order dated 05.05.2017, directing retrospective consideration for promotion of the respondents to the post of Second-in-Command and Commandant respectively, in the Border Security Force (BSF), from the date that their juniors had been promoted, along with all consequential benefits. 3. The respondents in the two writ petitions were superseded in the years 1996 and 2000, respectively. Both of them were subsequently promoted on 28.11.1997 and 16.06.2003 as Second-in-Command an

View Subscription Plans →