The High Court held that a writ petition by a retired petitioner seeking promotion was disposed of as infructuous. The court ruled that benefits of a promotional post cannot be extended even by way of notional promotion once the petitioner has retired.
Petitioner granted no relief.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WPSS No.584 of 2006 Hon’ble Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.
Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Alok Mehra, Advocate present for the petitioner.
Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
After having noted prayer of the petitioner and cause of action mentioned in writ petition, I found that the writ petition has become infructuous by reason of fact that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has retired from services. The petitioner, in this matter, wanted to have promotion but his claim for promotion has been rejected by the impugned order. Even if I allow this writ petition, the petitioner cannot be taken back to serve on the promotional post. Obviously, the benefit of promotional post cannot be extended under any circumstances, even given by notional promotion.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
(K.J. Sengupta, J.) 03.01.2013
JKJ/Arpan
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a promotion petition pending at the time of retirement can be allowed to give notional promotion benefits.
Petitioner
State of Uttarakhand
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
