Court holds denial of relaxation leading to loss of promotion amounts to injustice; directs relief to affected employee
The Supreme Court has granted relief to an employee who was denied promotion after authorities refused relaxation. The Court held that, in the facts of the case, the refusal unjustly deprived the employee of promotion and called for judicial intervention.
The case involved an employee who did not meet certain eligibility criteria for promotion. He sought relaxation under the applicable service rules. However, the authorities denied him that benefit.
The employee approached the Court and argued that other similarly placed employees had received relaxation. Yet, the same benefit was denied to him.
The dispute before the Court was whether this refusal of relaxation, which led to loss of promotion, was arbitrary and discriminatory.
The employee argued that the denial was unjustified and violated the principle of equality. He contended that the authorities had treated him unequally, even though others in similar circumstances had received relaxation. According to him, that unequal treatment cost him his rightful promotion.
The employer defended its decision. It argued that the employee did not satisfy the prescribed criteria and that relaxation was a matter of discretion.
The Supreme Court examined the issue of discriminatory treatment in service matters. It stressed that equality before the law is a foundational principle.
The Bench observed that when authorities grant relaxation to similarly situated employees, they cannot deny the same benefit to another employee without reasonable justification. The Court held that such unequal treatment amounts to discrimination.
In its remarks, the Court stated that “discrimination is the other name of injustice.” It added that administrative decisions must meet standards of fairness and non-arbitrariness.
The Court further observed that the power to grant relaxation cannot be exercised arbitrarily. It said that such discretion must follow uniform standards. Otherwise, unequal application would violate constitutional guarantees.
Finding merit in the employee’s claim, the Supreme Court directed the authorities to extend the benefit of relaxation to him and consider him for promotion accordingly.
The ruling ensures that the employee does not lose promotional benefits because of discriminatory denial of relaxation. It also reinforces the principle of equal treatment in service jurisprudence.
