PRESS NEWS: Government employee can't seek promotion after refusing it: Supreme Court
- 26.10.2014
NEW DELHI: A government employee, whose promotion is canceled 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 transfered to some other place.
"As we find that it is the respondent himself who is responsible for 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 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 on his post and approached the court after two years when it cancelled his promotion.
It said that at the time of promotion, Pandey was posted in Bhind district where he remained for almost 15 years and his intention was to stay at that place only.
The apex court, after hearing both sides, quashed the high court order.
"It is clear that he wanted to remain in Bhind district, where he had continued since 1990, as he was ready to go on leave instead of joining the place of transfer. Moreover, for more than two years from the date of cancellation of the order of promotion, the respondent kept totally mum and maintained stoic silence.
"There was not even a semblance of protest as to why his promotion order was cancelled or that he wanted to join the promotion post after the alleged inquiry into the so-called complaint was over. He filed the writ petition on October 24, 2008, i.e. almost two years after cancellation of his promotion order," it said.
The Judgment of the Supreme Court is erroneous. Due to education of Children or on medical grounds of self or dependents, an employee can deny his promotion to avoid transfer. For example, my father is 83 years and suffering from Cancer and treatment is going in one city and children are studying. If i am posted to some other city, it is very difficult to get the same facilities at a new place. So, this compulsions one can deny promotion to avoid transfer. This practice is continued in Banks. Once temporary problems are resolved, i can ask for promotion as well as transfer. My promotion can be considered for future vacancies. What is wrong in it. Completely barring for promotion for rest of service, the decision is too harsh. There should be an opportunity to the concerned employee to give reasons for denial of promotion to the competent authority and if the competent authority is convinced, an employee can allowed for promotion on future vacancies. Judgment should be just and reasonable. If you allow the promotion at a later stage, does not effect any body. If I am denied promotion, my juniors will be getting early promotions. I am not blocking the promotions of any body but blocking my career due to personal compulsions. That is why the judgment is erroneous.
ReplyDelete