Supreme Court Upholds Conviction as Husband Failed to Explain Wife’s Death in Matrimonial Home  ||  Supreme Court: Crime Scene Re-Enactment Does Not Always Violate Right Against Self-Incrimination  ||  Supreme Court: Cognizance Taken Without Hearing Accused under BNSS Section 223 is Void Ab Initio  ||  Supreme Court Upholds Will in Sister’s Favour, Says Excluding Natural Heirs is Not Suspicious  ||  Delhi HC: Absence of Public Witnesses and Videography in NDPS Recovery Relevant for Bail Decisions  ||  Raj HC Initiates Suo Motu Cognizance Over Severe Water Crisis in Jodhpur, Issues Interim Directions  ||  Del HC: Courts Cannot Direct, Monitor Inquiry Into Police Delay in Investigation After Bail Decision  ||  Supreme Court: After the BNSS, a Pre-Cognizance Hearing is Mandatory in PMLA Cases  ||  SC: Landowners Cannot be Forced to Waive Statutory Compensation to Claim Other Benefits  ||  Supreme Court: Banks are Lenient With Big Borrowers But Strict With Ordinary Loan Applicants    

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