The Delhi High Court comprising of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Vinod Kumar has questioned whether any court other than the Supreme Court can direct that its judgment shall not be cited as a precedent in other cases. The Court observed that while a judgment may clarify that its findings are based on the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case, such a caveat cannot prohibit its citation as a precedent.
The observation arose while the Court was examining an earlier decision in Nakul Dev v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 2361/2013, which contained a caveat that it could not be cited as a precedent. The High Court expressed doubts about the authority of courts other than the Supreme Court to impose such restrictions.
The Court made these observations while hearing a petition filed by the Union of India and the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change challenging a January 2024 order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in favour of the respondent, who retired as Scientist C in June 2013.
The Tribunal had directed the Ministry to ante-date his in-situ promotion to Scientist C from July 2007 to January 1, 2006, and to issue orders concerning his promotion to Scientist D with effect from January 1, 2010, along with consequential benefits, including arrears of pay.
The Centre argued that retrospective promotion was impermissible under the applicable recruitment rules and that promotion under the Flexible Complementing Scheme required a rigorous assessment process. It also contended that Om Prakash’s eligibility for promotion to Scientist D had never been assessed.
Rejecting the challenge, the High Court relied on its earlier decisions in Nakul Dev v. Union of India and Union of India v. S.K. Murti,2011 SCC OnLine SC 1655, observing that an employee could not be denied timely consideration for promotion because of administrative delays attributable to the department. It further held that the Ministry could not rely on the employee’s retirement to deny consideration for promotion and thereby benefit from its own default.
The Court upheld the Tribunal’s judgment, subject to the condition that the respondent’s promotion to Scientist D with effect from January 1, 2010, would depend on his suitability under the parameters prescribed in the Department of Personnel and Training’s Office Memorandum dated November 9, 1998. The requirement of an interview was dispensed with in view of his retirement. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs.
