The Supreme Court said Tuesday that the Bihar government’s appeal allowed men to appeal to retrospective seniors. The High Court should also allow retroactive seniority unless otherwise provided by the court or explicitly provided by applicable rules, as others who have previously participated in the service will be affected. He said it should be noted that there is no such thing.
“Law in the field of employment law warns that retrospective seniority cannot be claimed from the day the employee is not working,” said judges’ banks R Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy. The Supreme Court has heard an appeal by the Government of Bihar disagreeing with Patna’s Supreme Court order and is seeking a statement calling on state residents to obtain retroactive age.
The High Court stated that his father worked as a housekeeper, and the boy demanded a compassionate appointment after he died on the rig. The Commission in question recommended his name with others in 1985 as one of the lists of candidates appointed for compassion.
After being judged ineligible by physical standards, he was transferred to the High Court and was able to be appointed to a Class IV post. As he was selected; as the finalist for the Adhinayak Lipik post, he challenged the Supreme Court’s order granted by the Supreme Court and was appointed by the commander of the Bihar State Guard on February 27, 1996.
Six years after joining the service, he filed a request from him in 2002 claiming seniority from December 5, 1985, but authorities had appointed him in 1996 and since 1985. Requested not to be hired. A refusal order was subsequently disputed, and the Patna High Court ordered authorities; to consider his seniority system since December 5, 1985. The High Court states that the accused’s compassionate appointment is not an issue here, but more importantly, he claims the benefits of a ten-year seniority system without working a day during that period.
“In other words, you claim priority over other regular employees who got a job between 1985 and 1996. In this situation, you balance seniority with those who got a job long before the defendant. You can’t lean. It would be wrong to say that someone can join the service and benefit retroactively, “the bank said.
The court stated that this was not a recruitment process, but a compassionate appointment made in this court order. He said the court’s order to the state was to appoint within a month without specifying that the appointment should have a retroactive effect. The court stated that the defendant had never claimed his appointment on an earlier date.
The Supreme Court said Tuesday that the Bihar government’s appeal allowed men to appeal to retrospective seniors. The High Court should also allow retroactive seniority unless otherwise provided by the court or explicitly provided by applicable rules, as others who have previously participated in the service will be affected. He said it should be noted that there is no such thing.
“Law in the field of employment law warns that retrospective seniority cannot be claimed from the day the employee is not working,” said judges’ banks R Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy. The Supreme Court has heard an appeal by the Government of Bihar disagreeing with Patna’s Supreme Court order and is seeking a statement calling on state residents to obtain retroactive age.
The High Court stated that his father worked as a housekeeper, and the boy demanded a compassionate appointment after he died on the rig. The Commission in question recommended his name with others in 1985 as one of the lists of candidates appointed for compassion.
After being judged ineligible by physical standards, he was transferred to the High Court and was able to be appointed to a Class IV post. As he was selected; as the finalist for the Adhinayak Lipik post, he challenged the Supreme Court’s order granted by the Supreme Court and was appointed by the commander of the Bihar State Guard on February 27, 1996.
Six years after joining the service, he filed a request from him in 2002 claiming seniority from December 5, 1985, but authorities had appointed him in 1996 and since 1985. Requested not to be hired. A refusal order was subsequently disputed, and the Patna High Court ordered authorities; to consider his seniority system since December 5, 1985. The High Court states that the accused’s compassionate appointment is not an issue here, but more importantly, he claims the benefits of a ten-year seniority system without working a day during that period.
“In other words, you claim priority over other regular employees who got a job between 1985 and 1996. In this situation, you balance seniority with those who got a job long before the defendant. You can’t lean. It would be wrong to say that someone can join the service and benefit retroactively, “the bank said.
The court stated that this was not a recruitment process, but a compassionate appointment made in this court order. He said the court’s order to the state was to appoint within a month without specifying that the appointment should have a retroactive effect. The court stated that the defendant had never claimed his appointment on an earlier date.