Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 505 (HP)

Gopal Singh v. Indian Overseas Bank

2025-03-26

JYOTSNA REWAL DUA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. Petitioner was promoted as Clerk. He joined as such. Later, the respondents withdrew the promotion from the petitioner and reverted him to the Sub Clerical cadre citing that he had joined a day later to the cut-off date fixed for the purpose. Hence, the petition. 2. Facts. 2(i). Petitioner was serving in the Sub-Clerical cadre at Slappar Branch of the respondent-Bank at the relevant time. 2(ii). Respondents promoted the petitioner to the Clerical cadre on 01.04.2023. The office communication dated 15.04.2023 (Annexure P-2) was statedly addressed to the petitioner informing about his promotion to the Clerical cadre w.e.f. 01.04.2023 and his posting as such at NER Branch under Chandigarh region of the respondent-Bank. The office letter contained a recital that the petitioner was to join at NER Branch by 24.04.2023, failing which his promotion would be forfeited. 2(iii). The petitioner was relieved from his duties by Slappar Branch on 25.04.2023. Soon thereafter, the same day he joined as Clerk, consequent upon his promotion as Clerk, at NER Branch. 2(iv). The respondents vide email dated 28.04.2023, cancelled the promotion of the petitioner on the ground that he had not reported at the posting station by the cut-off date, i.e. 24.04.2023. He was reverted as Messenger and directed to immediately report back at Slappar Branch as a Messenger. The aforesaid circumstances have given rise to this writ petition, wherein following substantive reliefs have been prayed for:- “i). That the order of reversion/relieving of the Petitioner from the Clerical Cadre to Class-IV post made vide letter dated 29.4.2023 at Annexure P- 10, may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii) That the Respondents may be directed to release the benefits of the post of Clerical cadre to the Petitioner w.e.f. due date with all consequential benefits.” 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 4. Consideration. In my considered view, this petition deserves to be allowed and with cost. This is for the following reasons:- It is not in dispute that petitioner was promoted to Clerical cadre w.e.f. 01.04.2023. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 4. Consideration. In my considered view, this petition deserves to be allowed and with cost. This is for the following reasons:- It is not in dispute that petitioner was promoted to Clerical cadre w.e.f. 01.04.2023. The respondents have defended forfeiting petitioner’s promotion as Clerk and reverting him to the post of Messenger on the ground that under office communication dated 15.04.2023, petitioner had been informed about his promotion as Clerk and that he was to report at NER Branch on 24.04.2023 and further that failure to do so would result in forfeiture of his promotion. Since the petitioner did not report at the NER Branch (posted branch) on 24.04.2023, his promotion was justifiably cancelled and the petitioner was rightly reverted to Slappar Branch in the capacity of Messenger. 4(i). Firstly, it is to be noticed that there is nothing on on record to indicate as to when the promotion order was actually communicated to the petitioner by the respondent. In what manner office letter dated 15.04.2023 was conveyed to the petitioner, is not borne out from the record. The respondents have not appended anything along with their reply to demonstrate service of office letter dated 15.04.2023 upon the petitioner in any manner whatsoever. 4(ii). Secondly, the petitioner was admittedly working as Sub-Clerical staff at Slappar Branch on 15.04.2023. It was Slappar Branch that issued a communication to the petitioner on 25.04.2023 informing him about his promotion as Clerk, his posting as such at NER Branch and accordingly relieved him from Slappar Branch. Petitioner was relieved by the Slapper Branch on 25.04.2023. It is this relieving order placed on record as Annexure P-4 that informed the petitioner that he had been promoted as Clerk and transferred as such to NER Branch and he should immediately report for duty at the posted branch. Accordingly, on being relieved from Slappar Branch on 25.04.2023, the same day petitioner reported for duty at NER Branch, where he was sent on promotion as Clerk. It is also pertinent to notice that petitioner’s relieving order issued by Slapper Branch on 25.04.2023, categorically mentions about Slappar Branch having received an email on 25.04.2023 from the Chandigarh office about petitioner’s promotion as Clerk and posting as such at NER Branch. It is also pertinent to notice that petitioner’s relieving order issued by Slapper Branch on 25.04.2023, categorically mentions about Slappar Branch having received an email on 25.04.2023 from the Chandigarh office about petitioner’s promotion as Clerk and posting as such at NER Branch. From this an inference can be safely drawn that even the Slappar Branch, where the petitioner was working as Sub-Clerical staff, was not aware of petitioner’s promotion prior to 25.04.2023. No sooner than he became aware of his promotion as Clerk and relieved as Sub-Clerical staff, the petitioner on 25.04.2023 itself joined against the promotional post at NER Branch. 4(iii). It is not understandable that under what justifiable circumstances respondents withdrew petitioner’s promotion order and reverted him to the lower post when the petitioner had not even been served the office letter dated 15.04.2023 for his joining at NER Branch on promotion as Clerk by the cut-off date 24.04.2023. It is not a case where the petitioner did not join at the posting station, i.e. NER Branch, where he was sent on promotion. The petitioner joined there as Clerk on 25.04.2023, i.e. the day his promotion and consequent transfer was brought to his notice by the Slappar Branch. Even otherwise, forfeiting the promotion only on the ground that the employee had joined a day after the cut-off date of joining at the transferred station is an extremely harsh step on part of respondents. Such action cannot be sustained, more so in the given facts and circumstances. 4(iv). It is a rather strange and harsh case where the respondents have forfeited the promotion of the petitioner on the sole ground that consequent upon his promotion, the petitioner was to join at the transferred station on 24.04.2023, whereas he joined a day later, i.e. on 25.04.2023. Respondents did not even bother to give any notice or opportunity to the petitioner to explain the reasons for his not joining at the transferred station on 24.04.2023. In an absolute autocratic and dictatorial manner, petitioner’s promotion order was withdrawn by the respondents. Had the respondents complied with the principles of natural justice and given some notice to the petitioner before taking such a drastic step, it would have been apparent to them that prior to 25.04.2023 petitioner was not even communicated the factum of his promotion as Clerk and his posting as such at NER Branch. Had the respondents complied with the principles of natural justice and given some notice to the petitioner before taking such a drastic step, it would have been apparent to them that prior to 25.04.2023 petitioner was not even communicated the factum of his promotion as Clerk and his posting as such at NER Branch. What is more surprising, the respondent-the employer has sought to justify its illegal action of withdrawing petitioner’s promotion in its reply. The tone and tenor of the reply does not indicate any semblance of remorse. During hearing of the case, it was informed by learned counsel for the parties that consequent to impugned order withdrawing the petitioner’s promotion, he superannuated on 30.04.2023 as a Messenger (Sub-Clerical cadre). 5. In view of above discussion, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned decision of the respondents in cancelling/withdrawing promotion of the petitioner as Clerk as communicated to him through email dated 28.04.2023 (Annexure P-10) is quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall be deemed to have been promoted as Clerk w.e.f. 01.04.2023 and he shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits on that count, including the salary as Clerk till he retired on 30.04.2023. Petitioner’s retiral benefits be also worked out on that basis. The petition is allowed with the costs of Rs.20,000/- to be paid to the petitioner by the respondents. This exercise be completed within a period of six weeks from today. Failing which, the payable amount shall carry interest @ 5% p.a. from due date. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.