A government employee, whose promotion is cancelled owing to his refusal to accept it, cannot ask for it at a later stage, the Supreme Court has said.
The apex court set aside the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had directed the state government to restore the promotion of one of its employees whose promotion was cancelled after he turned down the offer as he did not want to get transferred to some other place. "As we find that it is the respondent himself who is responsible for the cancellation of the promotion order as he did not join the promoted post, the impugned order of the high court is clearly erroneous and against the law," a bench headed by Justice J. Chelameswar said.
The court passed the order on an appeal filed by the Madhya Pradesh government challenging the high court order. The government had submitted that the high court failed to consider that Ramanand Pandey himself sent back the promotion order and continued in his post and approached the court after two years when it cancelled his promotion.
From India, Malappuram
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
1446The apex court set aside the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had directed the state government to restore the promotion of one of its employees whose promotion was cancelled after he turned down the offer as he did not want to get transferred to some other place. "As we find that it is the respondent himself who is responsible for the cancellation of the promotion order as he did not join the promoted post, the impugned order of the high court is clearly erroneous and against the law," a bench headed by Justice J. Chelameswar said.
The court passed the order on an appeal filed by the Madhya Pradesh government challenging the high court order. The government had submitted that the high court failed to consider that Ramanand Pandey himself sent back the promotion order and continued in his post and approached the court after two years when it cancelled his promotion.
From India, Malappuram
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Honourable Supreme Court considered questions of fact and reversed Division Bench's judgment, which confirmed the decision of a single judge of the High Court.
The respondent is not found to have refused to accept the promotion as the following sentence in the representation of the respondent indicates:
"Since it was known by the reliable information on 08.07.06 that the farmers have moved a complaint as to a departmental inquiry against me before the Collector, I shall continue to work in the post of Agriculture Development Officer until the inquiry is disposed of."
The authorities should have either confirmed or denied the existence or otherwise of the inquiry. It is not clear whether the counsel for the respondent dwelt on this aspect to point out that the respondent merely stated his problem as to why he could not take up the assignment of the promoted post immediately on promotion.
As the counsel for the respondent probably did not bring this fact to the notice of the Honourable Supreme Court. Consequently, the Court held thus:
"As we find that it is the respondent himself who is responsible for the cancellation of the promotion order as he did not join the promoted post, the impugned order of the High Court is clearly erroneous and against the law."
The respondent has the option to pray for a review.
From India, Ernakulam
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The respondent is not found to have refused to accept the promotion as the following sentence in the representation of the respondent indicates:
"Since it was known by the reliable information on 08.07.06 that the farmers have moved a complaint as to a departmental inquiry against me before the Collector, I shall continue to work in the post of Agriculture Development Officer until the inquiry is disposed of."
The authorities should have either confirmed or denied the existence or otherwise of the inquiry. It is not clear whether the counsel for the respondent dwelt on this aspect to point out that the respondent merely stated his problem as to why he could not take up the assignment of the promoted post immediately on promotion.
As the counsel for the respondent probably did not bring this fact to the notice of the Honourable Supreme Court. Consequently, the Court held thus:
"As we find that it is the respondent himself who is responsible for the cancellation of the promotion order as he did not join the promoted post, the impugned order of the High Court is clearly erroneous and against the law."
The respondent has the option to pray for a review.
From India, Ernakulam
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.
Khushboo vs Kanniammal - Supreme Court Judgment - A Perspective.doc
LTA Order of Supreme Court.pdf