JUDGMENT S.N. MISHRA, J. 1. In this writ application, the petitioner has made a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or an appropriate direction commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Manager from the rank of Assistant Manager atleast from the date on which his juniors were promoted to such post. 2. Before I proceed to give reasons, it may be mentioned that after having heard learned counsel for the parties, on 16.11.1994, I passed the following orders:– "16.11.1994-Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus or direction commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Deputy Manager as several junior persons to the petitioner have been promoted to the post of Deputy Manager ignoring the claim of the petitioner, who is admittedly senior to those persons. In view of the points involved, the Division Bench of this Court by its order, dated 17.3.1993, directed the respondents to produce the relevant documents including the departmental promotion committee proceeding and the same direction was again reiterated by its order, dated 13.5.1993. Today in course of the argument when the Court wanted to see the said departmental promotion committee proceeding, the said document was not produced. The Court was even willing to grant some time to produce the same as in the opinion of the Court the same document is essential for the proper adjudication of the case in hand. In view of the points involved it is a vital piece of document to decide the case effectively, but the learned counsel for the respondents has expressed his inability to produce the said document before the Court. Accordingly, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents at great length in absence of the departmental promotion committee proceeding. This writ application is allowed. Reasons will follow later. Sd/- Choudhary S.N. Mishra" Hence, this reasoned judgment. 3. The petitioner joined the erstwhile Unit Union Co-operative Society Limited in the year, 1968, which was subsequently nationalised by an Act of Parliament and respondent no.1, namely, the United India Insurance Company Limited is the successor of the said Unit. This writ application is allowed. Reasons will follow later. Sd/- Choudhary S.N. Mishra" Hence, this reasoned judgment. 3. The petitioner joined the erstwhile Unit Union Co-operative Society Limited in the year, 1968, which was subsequently nationalised by an Act of Parliament and respondent no.1, namely, the United India Insurance Company Limited is the successor of the said Unit. The petitioner, in between 20.5.1985 and 19.4.1987, was posted as the Divisional Manager, Patna Division and from 1.7.1987 to 18.6.1989, as Divisional Manager, New Delhi and from 19.6.1989 to 19.6.1990 as Assistant Manager, Marketing, Regional Office, Delhi, from 20.6.1990 to 10.10.1991, as Divisional Manager, Division No. 8, New Delhi and thereafter from 11.10.1991 to 7.12.1991 as Assistant Manager, Delhi Regional Office, Delhi, and Assistant Manager, Patna Regional Office, Patna, from 18.12.1991 till date. Being a Divisional Manager of Patna Division, as many as 17 Branches in the State of Bihar were under the control of the petitioner. The respondent No.1, namely, the United India Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') framed a promotion policy for its officers, which was approved by the Board of Directors of the respondent Company and the same is applicable to the case of promotion of officers up-to-the rank of the General Manager of the Company. Clause 4 of the said policy provides for determination of vacancies for every financial year on the basis of the guidelines provided therein from time to time. Clause 6 thereof provides for promotion of officers to the rank of Manager, Deputy Manager, Assistant Manager and Administrative Officer. Clause 6.1 provides that for the purpose of being eligible for promotion, an officer should have completed in the existing cadre a minimum period of three full years from the date of selection to the cadre as on the 31st of December immediately preceding the year in which the promotions are considered. Clause 6.2 further provides that for promotion from the post of Assistant Manager to the post of Deputy Manager, the number of eligible officers shall be thrice the number of vacancies as determined under Clause 4 of the promotion policy. The petitioner was at serial no. 37 in the seniority list of Assistant Managers as on 1.1.1989 and the persons up to serial no. 92 in the aforesaid seniority list have been promoted to the post of Deputy Manager. The petitioner was at serial no. 37 in the seniority list of Assistant Managers as on 1.1.1989 and the persons up to serial no. 92 in the aforesaid seniority list have been promoted to the post of Deputy Manager. The petitioner having come to know that his juniors had been promoted by order, dated 10.5.1989 to the post of Deputy Manager, he filed a representation immediately thereafter on 5.6.1989, which was rejected on 13.11.1989. Again in the seniority list of Assistant Managers as on 1.1.1990, the name of the petitioner was at serial no. 24 and unfortunately, again by order, dated 17.5.1990, various persons junior to the petitioner up to serial no. 155 were promoted to the post of Deputy Manager. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a representation on 12.6.1990, which was rejected by order, dated 22.10.1990. In the seniority list of Assistant Manager as on 1.1.1991, the name of the petitioner was at serial no. 19. The respondent Company again by order, dated 30.4.1991, has promoted officers in the rank of Assistant Manager up to serial no. 36 to the post of Deputy Manager and, as usual, the representation filed by the petitioner was rejected by order dated 3.7.1991. In the seniority list in the year, 1992, the name of the petitioner was at serial no. 12. This time, the Company promoted Assistant Managers up to serial no. 171 to the post of Deputy Manager, by order, dated 30.4.1992 ignoring the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner, accordingly, filed a representation on 28.5.1992, but unfortunately, the respondent Company has not taken any decision on the said representation. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein, inter alia, it is stated that the performance of the petitioner through his service career was not satisfactory inasmuch as a C.B.I. case was also instituted against the petitioner wherein a charge sheet was submitted under Sections 120B, 420, 486 etc. of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 (i) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is further alleged that the petitioner has acted on several occasions against the interest of the Company and has to face the departmental proceeding. It is alleged that in the domestic enquiry, the charges were proved and his three increments were stopped. However, on a sympathetic consideration, punishment was modified to reduction to a lower scale by one step. It is further alleged that the petitioner has acted on several occasions against the interest of the Company and has to face the departmental proceeding. It is alleged that in the domestic enquiry, the charges were proved and his three increments were stopped. However, on a sympathetic consideration, punishment was modified to reduction to a lower scale by one step. It is further stated that the promotion policy has been fully adopted in awarding promotion to the Assistant Managers. It is further stated that the selection for promotion from the post of Assistant Manager to the post of Deputy Manager is based on seniority and merit-cum-growth potential as brought out in the performance appraisal. It is also stated that the case of the petitioner was considered and since he was not found fit he was not promoted to the post of Deputy Manager. The sum and substance of the counter-affidavit filed in this case is that since the performance of the petitioner was not up-to-mark as also the pendency of the criminal case including the departmental proceeding, he was not considered fit for promotion to the post of Deputy Manager, and while promoting the Assistant Managers to the post of Deputy Managers, the promotion policy was fully adhered to. 5. A reply to the counter-affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner wherein the allegations regarding the omission and commission of the petitioner have been denied and it has been further stated that when the first information report was lodged on the basis of the information supplied by the petitioner, he was not made an accused therein. This first information report was lodged in the year, 1987 against Sri T.M. Dutta and Sri R.P Singh. However, when the charge-sheet was submitted in the year, 1989, the petitioner was also made one of the accused. So far as the departmental proceeding is concerned, it is denied that the same was initiated on the basis of the recommendation made by the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.). It is true that some minor punishment was awarded to the petitioner in the departmental proceeding because of the ulterior motive of the vested interests in order to deprive him from the promotional post of Deputy Manager. It is true that some minor punishment was awarded to the petitioner in the departmental proceeding because of the ulterior motive of the vested interests in order to deprive him from the promotional post of Deputy Manager. As against the observance of the promotion policy, while giving promotion to the post of Deputy Manager, the petitioner refers to Clause 10.2 of the policy, which provides for preparation of the list of officers selected strictly on the basis of the seniority and that the promotion shall be made to such post to fill up the vacancy. Similarly, Clause 10.3 provides for preparation of reserve list from which promotion shall be made. Similarly, the contingency list shall be prepared for unforeseen vacancies, such as death, resignation etc. 6. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that admittedly, the Assistant Managers, who were junior to the petitioner, were promoted to the post of Deputy Manager ignoring the bona fide and rightful claim of the petitioner. He further submits that the case of the petitioner was never considered at any point of time in accordance with the promotion policy. As regards unsatisfactory performance of the petitioner as alleged by the respondents, the learned counsel refers to paragraph nos. 5 to 16 of the writ petition which are as follows:– "5. That it is relevant here to state that during the aforesaid period, performance of the petitioner was rated to be excellent, which would be evident from the communication dated 4.3.1987 of Shri B.D. Rai, Manager, which inter alia, states that 'since nationalisation of General Insurance Industry in the annual of Patna Division this is for the first time that you have been able to complete the closing of Accounts of your Division within February.' Excellent performance of the petitioner would also be evident from the letter dated 28.4.1987 of Shri K.S. Nair, Deputy Manager (Development) Eastern Region, Calcutta, recording that growth rate score of the petitioner is maximum amongst all the Divisions of the Eastern Region and the petitioner's documentation was also rated to be almost up-to-date. It is relevant here to state that the Eastern Region then consisted of entire North Eastern States, West Bengal, Orissa and Bihar. 6. It is relevant here to state that the Eastern Region then consisted of entire North Eastern States, West Bengal, Orissa and Bihar. 6. That it is relevant here to state that as Divisional Manager of Patna Division, the petitioner was controlling 17 branches spread at various places in the State of Bihar and such large number of branch to be managed by one Divisional Manager, which post the petitioner held, is only available in Patna Division of the respondent-Company. 7. That the excellent work of the petitioner was further appreciated by none other functionaries of the respondent-Company than the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Company himself who by letter dated 1.4.1987 placed on record that procurement of a premimum of Rs. 219.66 lacs for the year 1986, which accounts for growth rate of 26.6% was achieved because of the excellent work rendered by the petitioner to the company. The letter of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director also shows 9.1 percent disposal of documentation, operating surplus 21.3% and incurred claims 42% which was considered as excellent by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the respondent-Company. 8. That for the year 1987, the letter dated 14.7.1988 of Shri G.S. Puri, Manager, Delhi Regional Office, recorded the increase of 42.15% in the premium collected by the petitioner and put the petitioner's performance as excellent. The letter dated 9.8.1988 of the Assistant General Manager records the petitioner's performance and achievement as praiseworthy. 9. That it is relevant here to state that it is not only the functionaries of the Company but even the customers holding responsible position in life, namely, Shri Sumantra Chaudhary, I.A.S., Joint Secretary, Transport Department, Government of West Bengal, by his letter dated 30.10.1989 has placed on record his best appreciation for rendering valuable advice regarding insurance of the State Transport buses by the petitioner. The aforesaid appreciation of the petitioner by the Joint Secretary of the Government of West Bengal pertained to the period when the petitioner was posted as Divisional Manager, Division no. 1, New Delhi between the period 1.7.1987 to 18.6.1989. 10. The aforesaid appreciation of the petitioner by the Joint Secretary of the Government of West Bengal pertained to the period when the petitioner was posted as Divisional Manager, Division no. 1, New Delhi between the period 1.7.1987 to 18.6.1989. 10. That the work rendered by the petitioner for subsequent years was appreciated by Shri K.S. Nair, Manager, Delhi Regional Office in his letter dated 2.4.1990 who stated that the Company could become the leader with 50% Share in the transit insurance of Amonia and Phosphoric Acid because of the efforts of the petitioner in securing the business from Metal and Mineral Trading Corporation of India. The said letter further appreciated the petitioner's work in servicing M/s. IFFCO and M/s. KRIBHCO. The said work of the petitioner was also appreciated in the same way by Shri S.S. Pillai, Assistant General Manager, Delhi Regional Official and Shri U. Mahesh Rao, General Manager, Head Office. The business obtained by the petitioner from Railway Board was also subject-matter of appreciation of Shri K.S. Nair, Manager. It may be stated that the said act of the petitioner benefited the respondent-Company to the tune of Rs. 75 lacs. 11. That it is further relevant here to state that the petitioner procured insurance business of NAFED, Bombay, and the petitioner's efforts were appreciated by none other than the Senior Divisional Manager, Shri D. Ramsundaram by his letter dated 14.12.1990. 12. That it is further relevant here to state that for the work done by the petitioner as Divisional Manager, Division No. VIII, New Delhi Division, he got letters of appreciation not only from the officers of the company but also from the persons holding high position in Government. The letter dated 17.7.1991 of Shri Sumantra Chaudhary, I.A.S., Special Secretary of the Transport Department of the Government of West Bengal is an instance of the petitioner's excellent work, who has stated in his letter that Shri A.R. Singh presently posted as Divisional Manager, Division No. VIII, New Delhi Region, United India Insurance Company Limited was of great help to me at the stage of framing of the above scheme. In fact, the idea was mooted out by him and it was because of his initiative that the scheme could be given final shape. 13. In fact, the idea was mooted out by him and it was because of his initiative that the scheme could be given final shape. 13. That the performance of the petitioner was further acknowledged by Shri B.D. Rai, Assistant General Manager, National Insurance Company by his communication dated 18.12.1990 as also letter dated 28.12.1990 of Shri Bhasker Khulway, I.A.S., Managing Director, West Bengal State Fishermen Cooperative Federation Ltd. who conveyed his gratitude for rendering active assistance and early action for clearance of about 110 Group J.P.A. Claims of Fishermen of West Bengal. In fact, overwhelmed by the performance of the petitioner, the Government of West Bengal invited the petitioner to grace the occasion of disbursement of claims cheque in view of the petitioner's efforts in releasing the payment within a very limited period. 14. That it is further relevant here to state that for the petitioner's excellent performance, the Government of West Bengal was kind enough to present a momento to the petitioner which still lies in the office of D.O. VIII, New Delhi. Similar awards were given to the petitioner by the FISHCOFED in presence of Shri Ashok Goenka, Chairman of G.I.C. and various other dignitaries at New Delhi. 15. That in the year 1991, the petitioner's documentation disposal ratio, disposal of complaint received in Grievance Cell were found to be outstanding and the claims disposal ratio was found to be above average which would be evident from the letter dated 15.4.1991 of Shri P. Gurumurthi, Manager. Further, by letter dated 23.4.1991 of Shri P. Gurumurthi and K.S. Nair, the Committee of Managers recorded the target realisation of the petitioner's division to be 95.75% and for this achievement, the petitioner was also congratulated. 16. That the work rendered by the petitioner as Divisional Manager, Division no. VIII, New Delhi, has a long lasting effect and it is well known to everyone that an agreement was entered into between the company and the National Housing Cooperative Federation of India Ltd. which was effected due to the efforts of the petitioner and is to remain operative for a period of 10 years and the respondent-Company is likely to be benefited for large amount in crores for the said agreement. Agreement was also entered into between the respondent-Company and FISHCOFED due to the efforts of the petitioner. Agreement was also entered into between the respondent-Company and FISHCOFED due to the efforts of the petitioner. It is stated that this is a single achievement achieved by the petitioner in the history of the company." 7. The aforesaid statements made by the petitioners have neither been controverted in the counter-affidavit nor during the course of arguments, and, therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations regarding unsatisfactory performance of the petitioner is wholly unfounded. 8. In opposition to the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents has first challenged the maintainability of the instant writ petition on the ground of non-joinder of the promoted Deputy Managers, who are necessary parties to this writ application. Learned counsel for the respondents has next submitted that the post of Deputy Manager is a selective one and since the petitioner's performance was not up to the mark, his case has not been considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Manager. He has further submitted that because of the pendency of the C.B.I. case, the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Manager was not considered. That apart, learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has no requisite qualification for the post of Deputy Manager. In course of his arguments, learned counsel relied upon the statement made in paragraph 10 onwards of the counter-affidavit. 9. The first submission of the learned counsel for the respondents regarding non-maintainability of the writ petition is rejected outright. firstly, on the ground that the petitioner has not challenged the promotions of those persons to the post of Deputy Manager, who were junior to him, but on the contrary, he has challenged the mala-fide and arbitrary action of the respondent-authority for having ignored the bona-fide and rightful claim of the petitioner although he was/is fully qualified for and entitled to promotion to the post of Deputy Manager, which is a promotional post. That apart, arbitrariness of the respondent-authority is writ large on the face of the fact that prior to the year, 1990, there was no codified rules for promotion and the persons, who were/are admittedly junior to the petitioner, have been promoted to the post of Deputy Manager prior to 1990 by a (pick and choose) method, and the case of the petitioner for promotion to the said post has not been considered on any such occasions, for which no valid reasons have ever been assigned for making such a discriminatory treatment to the petitioner. Secondly, it is not expected that the petitioner would know details and whereabouts of the persons junior to him so promoted. That apart, if, in any way, anyone is affected by judgment of this Court, it will be open for him/them to challenge the same in an appropriate proceeding before an appropriate forum. 10. In the instant case, as has been stated above, it is the admitted position that the persons junior to the petitioner have been promoted to the post of Deputy Manager. From the amendment petition filed by the petitioner, annexing therewith the promotion policy, clause 3.2 whereof shows that the promotion policy became effective from 1990. Prior to that, there was no promotion policy, and the case of promotion was being considered purely on (seniority-cum-merit) basis. From the statements made in the writ petition, particularly, the statements relating to the performance of the petitioner, referred to in paragraphs 5 to 16, which have been quoted above it is clearly manifest that the performances of the petitioner throughout his service career were quite satisfactory. Even if assuming for a moment that a C.B.I. case was pending against the petitioner, it is a well established principle of law that for a mere pendency of a criminal case, promotion cannot be denied to the eligible candidate. Although the petitioner became eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Manager in the year 1988 itself, yet admittedly, his juniors were promoted to the post of Deputy Manager in supersession of his claim. Although the petitioner became eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Manager in the year 1988 itself, yet admittedly, his juniors were promoted to the post of Deputy Manager in supersession of his claim. From the statements made above, it is quite clear that right from 1988 upto 1992, the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Manager has not been considered on any such occasions at all, though it is stated by the counsel for the respondents that his case was considered by the Promotion Committee, but he was not found fit, which submission has been emphatically denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner and, perhaps, this was the reason for which a Division Bench of this Court, as stated above, called for the proceedings of the Promotion Committee. As it appears from the order, dated 16.11.1994, quoted at the very outset that the learned counsel for the respondents not only did not produce the papers relating to the proceedings of the Promotion Committee, rather he showed his inability to produce the same even though this Court was willing to grant time to the respondents for the said purpose in order to ascertain as to whether the case of the petitioner was ever considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Manager by the aforesaid committee. In absence of the aforesaid documents/proceedings of the Promotion Committee and, particularly, having regard to the statements made by the petitioner in the writ petition 33 also in the reply to the counter-affidavit including the amendment petition, I have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner's claim for promotion from the post of Assistant Manager to the post of Deputy Manager has been completely ignored by the respondents for the reasons best known to them. 11. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and after having gone through the pleadings of the respective parties, I am constrained to hold that the actions of the respondent-Company and its authorities in not considering the case of the petitioner vis-a-vis the other eligible candidates in the rank of Assistant Manager for his due cadre promotion is wholly illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and, accordingly, cannot be sustained in law. 12. In the result, this writ application is allowed. 12. In the result, this writ application is allowed. Let a writ of mandamus issue commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Manager from the first stage i.e. 1988 when the petitioner became eligible for promotion, but his juniors were promoted in supersession of his rightful claim giving due regard and impetus to his seniority in the gradation list at that point of time, in accordance with law as well as in the light of the observations made above. As the claim of the petitioner has been ignored right from 1988, the respondents concerned are directed to consider the matter of petitioner's promotion, as directed above, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this judgment. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, particularly, in view of the fact that the petitioner is being deprived of his due and legitimate promotional right from the year 1988, he is entitled to cost, which is assessed at Rs. 5,000/- (rupees five thousand) to be paid to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment.