STATE OF UTIARANCHAL & Anr. v. SRI SHIV CHARAN SINGH BHANDARI & Ors.

In the instant appeals filed by the State Government, it was contended for the appellants that both, the Tribunal and the High Court, failed to appreciate that the claim of the respondents was hit by the doctrine of delay and laches. It was submitted that the grant of notional promotion along with other consequential benefits to the respondents solely on the ground that the junior functioned in the promotional post from a prior date, was F not justified. The respondents, on the other hand, contended that they had been submitting representations since 1984 till they approached the Tribunal. Allowing the appeals, the Court G HELD: 1.1. If senior incumbents are eligible as per the rules and there is no legal justification to ignore them, the employer cannot extend the promotional benefit to a junior on ad hoc basis at his whim or caprice; and the person aggrieved can always challenge the same in an H appropriate forum, for he has a right to be considered even STATE OF UTTARANCHAL v. SHIV CHARAN SINGH 611 BHANDARI for ad hoc promotion and a junior cannot be allowed to A march over him solely on the ground that the promotion granted is ad hoc in nature. [para 12] [617-D-F]

1.2. Although the claim of promotion is based on the concept of equality and equitability, yet the relief has to be claimed within a reasonable time. [Para 19] [620-C-D] 8