Skip to content


Virendra Kumar and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService;Constitution
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 441 of 1981
Judge
Reported inAIR1981SC1775; 1981LabIC1514; (1981)3SCC30
AppellantVirendra Kumar and ors.
RespondentUnion of India (Uoi)
Excerpt:
- indian penal code, 1890 sections 300 & 304,part ii :[dr.arijit pasayat, d.k.jain & dr.mukundakam sharma,jj] murder - nature of injury - accused causing bullet injury on right shoulder of deceased injury proving fatal conviction of accused for muirder is improper and is liable to be altered to section 304 part ii. section 300 : murder-prosecution case that incident took place as deceased who was playing cards refused to permit accused to join them - evidence of one of partners of deceased supporting prosecution case - deposition to same effect made by witness who reached spot on hearing sound of firing held, plea that prosecution case was not supported by independent evidence is not tenable. .....a large number of persons have been promoted to those posts though they have completed only two years of service. the government now appears to insist that in so far as the appellants are concerned they cannot be considered for promotion unless they complete three years of service we see no justification for any such differential treatment being given to the appellants. if a large number of other persons similarly situated have been promoted as chargeman grade ii after completing two years of service, there is no reason why the appellants should also not be similarly promoted after completing the same period of service. we are not suggesting that the appellants are entitled to be promoted to the aforesaid posts even if they are found unfit to be promoted.3. we therefore direct that.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. Heard Counsel. Special leave granted.

2. Our attention has been invited by learned Counsel for both the sides to the relevant Rules which govern promotion to the post of Chargeman Grade II. It appears that a large number of persons have been promoted to those posts though they have completed only two years of service. The Government now appears to insist that in so far as the appellants are concerned they cannot be considered for promotion unless they complete three years of service We see no justification for any such differential treatment being given to the appellants. If a large number of other persons similarly situated have been promoted as Chargeman Grade II after completing two years of service, there is no reason why the appellants should also not be similarly promoted after completing the same period of service. We are not suggesting that the appellants are entitled to be promoted to the aforesaid posts even if they are found unfit to be promoted.

3. We therefore direct that the concerned authorities will consider the cases of the appellants for promotion as Chargeman Grade II and promote them to the said posts unless they are found to be unfit. If the appellants are promoted, they will naturally have to be promoted with effect from the date on which they ought to have been promoted.

4. This Order will dispose of the appeal.

5. There will be no Order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //