Skip to main content

Denial of promotion should be as per law - SC

When there is merger or amalgamation of units, the employees have a right to get positioned appropriately in the merged service. There is, however, no vested right for an employee to have a particular position in the integrated or merged service. It is always open to the authorities concerned to lay down the principles with regard to fixation of seniority. On the other hand, incoming employees cannot be kept for all times as a different cadre and denied promotion while those in the parent cadre enjoy that benefit. The Supreme Court stated so while setting aside the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case, Panchraj Tiwari vs MP State Electricity Board. A junior engineer of the Rural Electricity Cooperative Society was aggrieved when he was denied promotion after the society was merged in the board. The board interpreted the terms of the merger with regard to staff as denying promotion to the employees of the absorbed society. The Supreme Court stated that though courts do not normally interfere with the principles of integration unless it was shown as arbitrary, unreasonable or unfair, in this case, the denial of promotion was unconstitutional as it was discriminatory.

 Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/late-objection-to-arbitration-invalid-114032300753_1.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more