Promotion - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court’s Mixed Verdict for a Forest Officer :Right Declared, But Promotion Delayed

24Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court’s Mixed Verdict for a Forest Officer :Right Declared, But Promotion Delayed

The Supreme Court ruled that the term "State Forest Service" under the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966, refers to the service as a whole, not individual posts. The Court held that once a state service is approved, its substantively appointed gazetted officers, including Forest Range Officers, are eligible for consideration for promotion to the Indian Forest Service. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, P. Maruthi Prasada Rao, was appointed as a Forest Range Officer (FRO) in 2006. In 2021, he petitioned the authorities, arguing that FROs should be considered part of the "State Forest Service" and thus be eligible for promotion to the Indian Forest Service (IFoS) when sufficient numbers of senior officers like Deputy Conservators of Forests (DCFs) and Assistant Conserv...

Supreme Court Slams “Ad-hocism”: Orders Regularization of Employees After 30+ Years of Service

19Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Slams “Ad-hocism”: Orders Regularization of Employees After 30+ Years of Service

This Supreme Court judgment reaffirms that the State, as a constitutional employer, cannot deny regularization of perennial work performed by long-serving ad hoc employees. Arbitrary refusals to sanction posts based on financial constraints violate Articles 14, 16, and 21. The Court mandated the creation of supernumerary posts for regularization, emphasizing that outsourcing cannot justify exploitation or circumvent the duty to provide fair and secure employment. Facts Of The Case: The appellants were engaged as daily wage employees (Class-III Driver and Class-IV Peons/Attendants) by the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission between 1989 and 1992. They performed regular, perennial duties essential to the Commission's functioning. In 1991, the Commission itself resolved to create four...

Supreme Court Mandates Timely Promotions and Cadre Review for CAPF Officers

11Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Mandates Timely Promotions and Cadre Review for CAPF Officers

The Supreme Court affirmed Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) as 'Organized Group-A Services,' entitling officers to Non-Functional Financial Upgradation. It directed a six-month cadre review and recruitment rule revision. The Court also suggested progressively reducing IPS deputation posts in CAPFs to address officer stagnation and grievances Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a long-standing grievance of officers belonging to the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) – including CRPF, BSF, SSB, ITBP, and CISF. These officers sought recognition of their services as 'Organized Group-A Services' (OGAS), a crucial classification for ensuring parity with other Group-A services and entitlement to benefits such as Non-Functional Financial Upgradation (NFFU). A primary co...

Big Win for Disabled Workers: Supreme Court Strikes Down Discriminatory GO on Seniority and Promotion

10Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Big Win for Disabled Workers: Supreme Court Strikes Down Discriminatory GO on Seniority and Promotion

The Supreme Court overturned the Kerala High Court's judgments, restoring previous orders that granted benefits of seniority, probation, and promotion to appellants with benchmark disabilities. The Court found the State Government's subsequent order, which sought to deny these benefits to those regularly appointed on supernumerary posts, to be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court affirmed that once regular appointments were made, associated benefits could not be withdrawn. Facts Of The Case: The appellants are individuals with benchmark physical disabilities exceeding 40% who were temporarily engaged in various public institutions in Kerala under Rule 9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958, for periods not exceeding 179 days. ...