Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 578 (PAT)

Sita Ram Singh v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

2012-04-05

S.N.HUSSAIN

body2012
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- (i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/writs for commanding and directing the respondent authorities to grant promotion to the petitioner and fix the basic pay of petitioner in light of the Home Rule 1999 Para 4 and sub Para 2 (Amendment to Promotion Policy for supervisory clerk and subordinate staff) of the respondent authorities, as petitioner has completed 20 years of service hence, legally entitled to get promotion in the cadre of Senior Assistant under above stated provision. (ii) For further commanding and directing the respondent authoritys to pay all consequential benefits arising out of promotion to petitioner with effect from date of promotion along with other due retiral benefits with statutory interest till the date of payment. (iii) For any other relief/reliefs for which this petitioner is found legally entitled in the present facts and circumstances of the case for the ends of justice. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed in the cadre of Assistant in the United India Insurance Company Limited and he joined the said post on 06.09.1989. It is also not in dispute that he completed 20 years of service on 05.09.2009 and retired on 30.09.2010. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon paragraph 25A specially sub-para (vi) of the Promotion Policy For Supervisory, Clerical and Subordinate Staff, 2008 which provides as follows:- “25A. Special provision of minimum one promotion in life time for Assistants - Such of the employees who joined the service of the Company in the cadre of Assistant, have put in 25 completed years of service in the same cadres, are not below 55 completed years of age and have not received a single promotion, would be considered for promotion to the cadre of Senior Assistant to the extent of and against specific vacancies, as may be approved by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Company for the purpose, on completion of normal promotion exercise, on the following basis:- (i) Eligibility would be restricted to employees who have put in minimum of 25 years of service in the cadre of Assistant, without receiving a single promotion so far in their entire service career. (ii) Such employees shall not be below the age of 55 completed years to be reckoned as on the cut-off date (31st December) of the preceding year. (iii) Selection would be subject to satisfactory work record and the concerned employee not being unfit for promotion. Any employee who is (a) under suspension (b) in respect of whom chargesheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending and (c) in respect of whom prosecution for a criminal charge is pending, would be deemed to be ineligible for consideration under this paragraph. (iv) Selection made under this paragraph would not reckon against regular vacancies but would be against the specific additional vacancies as may be sanctioned by the Chairman-cum- Managing Director of the Company. (v) Selection under this paragraph from amongst the eligible employees in the cadre of Assistant would be based on the marks obtained as provided for under the existing criteria for Seniority, Qualification & Work Record in relation to promotion to the cadre of Senior Assistant. However, weightage for Seniority would be to the extent of 3 marks for each completed year of service in the cadre beyond 25 years of service in the cadre. (vi) For employees who are „ex-servicemen? within the meanings of the Ex-servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1970 as amended from time to time the service rendered in the Armed Forces of the Indian Union in the past before joining the services of the company, shall be counted upto a maximum of 5 years, as service rendered with the Company for the purpose of determining eligibility (i.e. calculating 25 years) as also for the purpose of grant of weightage for service under this paragraph. Note: In case of any doubt on interpretation of any part of the provisions of this paragraph CMD of the Company would have the powers to clarify and issue guidelines.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that a notice dated 21.10.2009 was issued by the respondent-Bank with respect to promotion exercise 2009 for Supervisory, Clerical and Subordinate Staff. Note: In case of any doubt on interpretation of any part of the provisions of this paragraph CMD of the Company would have the powers to clarify and issue guidelines.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that a notice dated 21.10.2009 was issued by the respondent-Bank with respect to promotion exercise 2009 for Supervisory, Clerical and Subordinate Staff. In paragraph 25A of the Promotion Policy of 2008 there is a special provision of minimum one promotion in life time for Assistants and in response to the said notice, the petitioner applied, but his claim was not considered, although he had completed 20 years of service and had also attained 55 years of age before the date of notice dated 21.10.2009. Hence, the petitioner being aggrieved by the rejection of his claim has filed the instant writ petition. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that no provision of Home Rule of 1999 is applicable to such matters and the promotion of SCS Staff of the Company is governed by the Policy which is framed by the Company from time to time. He further submits that the promotion notice dated 21.10.2009, in response to which the petitioner had applied for promotion, specifically mentioned the cut off date „31.12.2008?, hence the petitioner not coming under the said cut off date was not considered and before the next promotion notice could be issued, the petitioner retired on 30.09.2010. 7. The said promotion notice of the respondent dated 21.10.2009 reads as follows:- “With reference to the above, we advise you to immediately arrange to call for applications under “Special Provision of minimum one Promotion in life time for Assistants” under Para 25A of Promotion Policy for SCS Staff 2008 the Notice may be dated 22.10.2009. The last date for submission of application is 30/10/2009. The cut-off date for eligibility is to be reckoned as on 31/12/2008. Promoting Authority nominated for promotion to the cadre of Senior Assistant for the current promotion exercise 2009 will be the Promoting Authority under this para also. A copy of the Notice may be sent to us for our records. Please arrange to send the Annexures relating to the above para on or before 06/11/2009. In case, no eligible applicants are there, please send a „nil? report by fax immediately.” 8. A copy of the Notice may be sent to us for our records. Please arrange to send the Annexures relating to the above para on or before 06/11/2009. In case, no eligible applicants are there, please send a „nil? report by fax immediately.” 8. Learned counsel for the respondents also states that the power to modify or relax the aforesaid Promotion Policy is with the Chairman-cum-Managing Director who may by an order or reasons to be recorded in writing dispense with or relax the provision of the Promotion Policy, 2008 to such an extent he may consider necessary for dealing with individual cases in a just and equitable manner and for meeting exigencies of work situation or for complying with official guidelines that may be issued from time to time. 9. He further avers that in case of any doubt on any provision requiring clarification, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Company is authorized to issue necessary clarification. Hence, he submits that the claim of the petitioner is frivolous and misconceived and is fit to be rejected. 10. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record it is quite apparent that the entire dispute is with respect to interpretation of paragraph 25A of the Promotion Policy, 2008 for Supervisory, Clerical and Subordinate Staff, 2008. The said provision specifically provides that such of the employees who joined the service of Company in the cadre of Assistant and have completed 25 years of service in the same cadre and are not below 55 completed years of age and have not received any single promotion they are to be considered for promotion in the cadre of Senior Assistant. It also provides that if such an employee is an ex-service man within the meaning of Ex-Serviceman (Re-employment in Central Services and Posts) Rules, 1970 as amended from time to time the service rendered in the Armed Force of the Indian Union in the past before joining the service of the Company, shall be counted upto a maximum of 5 years, as service rendered with the company for the purpose of determining eligibility as also for the purpose of grant of weightage for service under the said paragraph. In the said circumstances, the petitioner being an ex-service-man within the meaning of the aforesaid Rules of 1970 where he remained in service for more than 5 years and had completed 55 of age, he was entitled to promotion after 20 years of completed service in the cadre. 11. Furthermore paragraph 25A (iv) provided that selection made under Paragraph 25A would not reckon against regular vacancies, but would be against the specific additional vacancies as sanctioned by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Company. In the said circumstances, paragraph 25 A being special beneficial provision for the SCS Staff who had not received any promotion in their entire career running over 20 years, hence it was the duty of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Company as per the above mentioned provision to consider the cases of such employees and sanction specific additional vacancies for the said purposes. This clearly has not been done in the instant case. Had the authorities concerned followed the aforesaid provision, the petitioner, who had completed 20 years of service in September, 2009, would not have been allowed to retire in September, 2010 without getting any promotion or even any consideration for promotion. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid Promotion Policy, 2008 it appears that such promotion policy was formulated in the year 1978 and thereafter it was modified in 1990-91 and thereafter a fresh promotion policy of 2008 was introduced which is not for only one year, rather it has to continue until the said policy is cancelled or a fresh policy is introduced. 12. From perusal of Paragraph 25A of the said Promotion Policy, 2008, it transpires that no application was required for the said purpose, rather it was for the authorities themselves to consider such cases for promotion and pass necessary orders for their promotion after sanctioning additional vacancies. The authorities having failed in their duties, the petitioner was quite justified in approaching this Court. 13. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to give notional promotion to the petitioner to the post of Senior Assistant with effect from 06.09.2009 when he completed 20 years of service and to pay to the petitioner all the consequential benefits arising out of the said promotion to the petitioner with effect from the said date as well as retiral benefits on its basis from the date of his retirement, i.e. 30.09.2010.