SC: Hard to Believe Married Woman Was Lured Into Sex by False Marriage Promise; Case Quashed  ||  SC: Properties Acquired by Karta are Presumed to be Joint Hindu Family Assets unless Proven Otherwise  ||  SC: Trial Courts Must Record that Free Legal Aid was Offered to Accused Before Witness Examination  ||  SC: State Government Employees Cannot Claim Dearness Allowance Twice a Year Unless Rules Allow  ||  P&H High Court: Anticipatory Bail on Settlement Can be Revoked if Compromise is Broken  ||  Delhi High Court: Consenting Adults can Choose Life Partners Without Societal or Parental Approval  ||  Cal HC: Excessive Palm Sweating Alone Cannot Render Candidate Medically Unfit for CAPF Appointment  ||  Del HC: Mother's Right to Education and Personal Growth Cannot be Restricted Due To Custody Disputes  ||  SC: Under RTE Act, States Cannot Justify Low Teacher Pay by Citing Centre’s Failure to Release Funds  ||  Supreme Court: While a Child’s Welfare is Paramount, It is Not the Sole Factor in Custody Disputes    

Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. vs. Jay Prakash Soja (Neutral Citation: 2024: DHC: 2462-DB) - (High Court of Delhi) (28 Mar 2024)

It is always open for the employer to change the promotion criteria as and when deemed necessary

MANU/DE/2322/2024

Service

The present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 seeks to assail the order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal). Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has allowed the original application (OA) filed by the respondent/applicant by holding that the changed criteria for grant of senior scale, as notified on 5th March, 2010, could not be made applicable to the respondent as he had joined service much prior i.e., on 18th October, 2004 and, would therefore, be governed by the notification dated 30th December, 1999.

As per the notification dated 30th December, 1999, six years of service was required for consideration for grant of senior scale, which period was as per notification dated 5th March, 2010, enhanced to nine years qua those candidates who are holding neither Masters degree nor Ph.D.

It is trite law that it is always open for the employer to change the promotion criteria as and when deemed necessary. The only requirement is that the said change should not be arbitrary and should be applied uniformly to all similarly situated employees. Present Court, therefore, have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order, which proceeds only on the basis of the premise that the respondent's case for grant of senior time scale was required to be considered under the notification dated 30th December, 1999 and not as per notification dated 5th March, 2010.

The Respondent's plea that he was discriminated and his appointment was wrongfully delayed cannot be simply brushed aside. These aspects were not considered by the learned Tribunal. Even though the impugned order is not sustainable and is required to be set aside, taking into account the respondent's specific plea that he was discriminated against, he ought to be granted an opportunity to establish his plea of discrimination before the learned Tribunal. The Original Application is remanded back to the learned Tribunal for fresh adjudication of the same on merits. Petition disposed off.

Tags : CRITERIA   PAY-SCALE   GRANT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved