Gujarat High Court
Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs Shyam Mohan on 12 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/217/2005 ORDER DATED: 12/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 217 of 2005
==========================================================
OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD
Versus
SHYAM MOHAN
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AJAY R MEHTA(453) for the Appellant
MR DEEPAK V PATEL(606) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 12/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Present second appeal u/s 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short "the Code") challenges judgment and decree 28.9.2004 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, Bharuch in Regular Civil Appeal No.66 of 1998, whereby the learned District Court dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.4.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (JD), Ankleshwar in Regular Civil Suit No.2 of 1991, who has allowed the suit filed by the respondent plaintiff, by which the learned trial Court declared that the act of the ONGC to promote the juniors of the plaintiff to the post of AEE and EE is against the principles of nature justice as well as policy of the ONGC and prejudicial to the plaintiff. Further, it was declared that the plaintiff is entitled to get promotion in the post of AEE and EE prior to the juniors of the plaintiff who got promotion under 12 years policy and further directed that the plaintiff be given all service benefits, Page 1 of 13 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Sat Nov 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 21:39:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/217/2005 ORDER DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined bonus etc. considering that he has been promoted prior to his juniors are promoted under said 12 years policy.
2. This second appeal was admitted on 14.10.2005 framing following substantial questions of law:-
"(i) Could the courts below have directed the plaintiff to to meet the be promoted despite his failing fitness criteria fixed by the appellant for all its employees ?
(ii) Are the courts below have issued directions de-
hors the defendants statutory rules?"
3. Parties are referred to as per their original status before the learned trial Court for convenience.
4. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
4.1 The Respondent herein joined appellant on 13.6.66 ar was holding the post of Technician Grade-I (Elect.) when the Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1980 came into force.
4.2 The Respondent along with other persons filed a writ petition bearing Sp.C.A. No. 2541 of 1980 against present appellant which came to be decided by Hon'ble Division Bench of our Hon'ble High Court on 09-07-87 wherein Hon'ble High Court passed following order:
"Mr. Rajni Mehta learned. counsel for ONGC states that all Grade I as on April 25 1980 would be Technicians considered for placement their respective trades w.e.f. 25 in the post of Chargeman in April Page 2 of 13 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Sat Nov 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 21:39:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/217/2005 ORDER DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined 1980 with normal benefit of pay fixation. Mr. Rajni Mehta further states that the petitioner's demand as prayed for in the petition is being fulfilled and hence nothing survives in the petition."
4.3 After the disposal of these writ petitions, the respondent alongwith other similarly situated Technicians Grade I were placed in the post & scale of Chargeman with normal pay fixation and benefits.
4.4 The appellant thereafter introduced the policy dated 25- 4-1980 which envisaged 12 years service in the present post falling in unionized categories, for consideration to the higher post. Since these Technicians Grade I who were placed in the post of Chargeman with normal pay fixation benefits of promotion were not eligible for future promotions from the post of Chargeman and therefore, they were not considered.
4.5 The respondent than filed Reg. Civil Suit No.87/88 which came to be disposed off as withdrawn upon undertaking by the present appellant to the effect that plaintiff's case for promotion to the post of Asst. Engineer is considered and he will be given promotion to the said post w.e.f.01.04.1982 the date from which his juniors werè promoted and so far as the promotion to the post of AEE (Elect) w.e.f. 01.01.1985 is concerned his case was to be considered along with other similarly situated persons.
4.6 The appellant thereafter introduced one stagnation relief scheme 'known as 18 years policy under which any employee in unionized cadre was eligible for consideration of promotion Page 3 of 13 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Sat Nov 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 21:39:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/217/2005 ORDER DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined to the next higher post/grade, if he had completed 18 years of service in the present and the next below post as on 31-03- 1982. Under the said policy the respondent's case was also considered and he was promoted to the post of Asst. Engineer w.e.f. 1.4.1982.
4.7 That as per Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1980 the criteria for promotion to the post of Asst. Engineer was 6 years experience as Chargeman(Elect.) with trade test and certificate of competency. In spite of same respondent came to be promoted to the post of Asst. Engineer w.e.f. 1.4.1982 under the said 18 years policy.
4.8 The appellant further considered the cases of Asst. Engineers for the promotion of Asst. Executive Engineer (Elect.) by granting 1/3 relaxation in qualification w.e.f.01.01.1985. Plaintiff being diploma holder in Electrical Engineering was required to have 4 years experience still however he was considered along with others and was called for interview by the Departmental Promotion Committee.
4.9 Admittedly the sole uniform criteria for promotion under regulations is seniority cum fitness.
4.10 Applying the above prescribed statutory formula the Departmental Promotion Committee interviewed plaintiff for the post of Asst.Executive Engineer along with other eligible candidates and after considering the various aspects of the matter found plaintiff unfit and hence did not promoted the plaintiff.
Page 4 of 13 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Sat Nov 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 21:39:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/217/2005 ORDER DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined
4.11 The plaintiff on 03.01.1991 filed Regular Civil Suit No. 2/1991 against present appellant seeking Declaration and permanent injunction that action of the Defendant promoting juniors for the post of AEE and EE is violative of principles of natural justice and is malafide, capricious and against the Regulations/policy, circular of ONGC and also claiming entitlement to promotion and other benefits under 12 year policy by which his juniors were promoted.
4.12 The said suit was tried by the court of Civil Judge (JD), Ankleshwar and the evidence was lead. The suit came to be decided on 30.04.1998 whereby the trial court was pleased to partly allow the suit and decreed the suit holding the plaintiff to be entitle to the promotion as prayed for.
4.13 Hence, present second appeal.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Ajay Mehta appearing for the appellant ONGC would mainly submit that the judgment and decree passed by the learned civil Court is erroneous and without considering statutory rules of the ONGC. He would further submit that the ONGC has followed the undertaking given before this Court as well as the undertaking given before the learned civil Court and accordingly, promoted the plaintiff. He would further submit that the learned trial Court misread the issue, however the plaintiff was given promotion of chargeman as per the undertaking given before this Court and further given promotion w.e.f. 1.4.1982 to the post of AE as he was agreed in a proceedings of the Regular Civil Suit Page 5 of 13 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Sat Nov 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 21:39:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/217/2005 ORDER DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined that subsequent promotion to the post of AEE and EE were also given to the plaintiff as per the rules. He would further submit that the ONGC followed the principles of seniority- cum-fitness-cum-merit. He would further submit that when the cause arose to promote the plaintiff to the post of AEE and EE, the ONGC has followed the rules of seniority-cum-fitness- cum-merit and found that the juniors to the plaintiff were more fit medically and physically than the plaintiff and hence, following the rules, the ONGC has promoted the juniors of the plaintiff and later on, when the plaintiff was found fit to be promoted, promotion was given. He would further submit that to get the promotion is not a statutory right and therefore, he cannot seek that he may be given promotion as and when avenue for promotion opens up.
5.1 For the aforesaid argument, learned advocate Mr. Mehta took this Court through the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and would submit that serious error has been committed by the learned trial Court and perhaps, the learned Courts below was prejudiced to the ONGC on the ground that the juniors of the plaintiff have been given promotion prior in point of time. However, the ONGC has just followed its own procedure and statutory rules. He would further submit that the learned civil Court should not venture in deciding the promotional policy until the civil Court finds that principle of nature justice has not been followed or any promotion made de hors the statutory rule or promotional policy. He would further submit that the learned appellate Court is expected to re-appreciate entire facts and evidence on record in hearing first appeal, but instead, it has just Page 6 of 13 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Sat Nov 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 21:39:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/217/2005 ORDER DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined delivered the judgment as if it has translated the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court in Gujarati into English version and therefore, serious error has been committed by the learned Courts below in passing the impugned judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff.
5.2 Upon above discussion, learned advocate Mr. Mehta submitted to allow the appeal and to set aside concurrent findings arrived at by the learned Courts below.
6. Notice is served to the respondent - plaintiff, as learned advocate Mr. Dipak Patel has withdrawn his Vakalatnama, but the respondent plaintiff did not remain present to contest the proceedings.
7. It is to be noticed that the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court was firstly stayed by the learned appellate Court and then, subsequently, stayed by this Court and therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court did not come into existence. The judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below thus, did not ripe into actual benefit to the plaintiff.
8. The findings of the learned trial Court in the judgment of the Regular Civil Suit could be noticed in para 7 to 9, which reads as under:-
"7. The Learned Advocate Shri T.R. Shaikh for the Plaintiff has argued that the Plaintiff filed Spl.C.A. No. 2541/80 before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, wherein the Ld. Advocate Shri Rajnibhai Page 7 of 13 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Sat Nov 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 21:39:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/217/2005 ORDER DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined H. Mehta for the O.N.G.C. gave an undertaking that all those who were in Technical Grade-I (First) would be considered for the post of Chargeman in their respective trades from 25th April, 1980 and the benefits of equal pay would be given. In this manner, the Plaintiff should be given the promotion to A.E. on the basis of the Twelve Year Policy after making him a Charge-man, and thereafter should be promoted to A.E.E. from 01/10/1982, and thereafter the should be promoted to E.E. from 01/01/1987. Despite that, the Defendants disregarded the O.N.G.C. recruitment and promotion policy and rules by giving promotion to workmen junior to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff becomes entitled to get the aforesaid promotions from time to time. Upon reading the oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties in this matter, it appears that the Plaintiff was considered a Charge-man after filing the Writ Petition in the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. Thereafter, the policy of the O.N.G.C. was that, those who had completed Twelve Years in Technical Grade- I (First) should be made A.E. (Assistant Engineer), but the Commission did not make the Plaintiff an A.E. therefore the Plaintiff has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 87/88 before this Ld. Court. At that time, workmen junior to the Plaintiff were given the benefit of the Twelve Year Policy and the promotion to A.E. was given, and an Eighteen Year Policy was considered for the Plaintiff and the promotion to A.E. was given with effect from 01/04/1982. However, as per the Twelve Year Policy, the Plaintiff was entitled to get this promotion from 1980. In this manner, the Commission adopted double standards and rules, and although the Plaintiff was senior, he was disregarded and was promoted to A.E. with effect from 01/04/1982 even though he was eligible for the promotion to A.E. from 1980, which appears to be against the principles of natural justice.
8. Thereafter, the Plaintiff was called for the interview for promotion to A.E.E., but he was held unfit in it. It has been contended for the Defendant that a Diploma Holder must have four years of Page 8 of 13 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Sat Nov 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 21:39:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/217/2005 ORDER DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined experience as an A.E. to be considered eligible for A.E.E., but, as the Commission had given a relaxation of 1/3 experience, he became eligible for the A.E.E. interview as per the rules of the Commission on 01/01/1985. Submission has been made for the Defendant that the A.C.R. and overall performance should be good. It has been argued for the Defendant that the remarks should be 'A' minus, plus to 'B', which the Plaintiff did not have. Therefore, he was held unfit in the A.E.E. interview. However, the Learned Advocate Shri T.R. Shaikh for the Plaintiff has argued that, if there is an adverse remark, that remark should be communicated to the workman as per the principles of natural justice as well as for a judicious decision. In the present case, the Commission did not communicate any such remarks of the Plaintiff. For this reason too, the Plaintiff has been wrongfully held unfit in the A.E.E. interview. Further, the Defendants have produced the remarks reports of the Plaintiff for different years vide Exhibits-73 to 79. Upon reading the same, it appears that no adverse remarks are found anywhere in the A.C.R. of the Plaintiff. It has been also argued for the Defendant that, the Plaintiff's A.C.R. remarks were not up to the level. If the remarks were not up to the level, those remarks should be communicated to the Plaintiff, but the Defendant Commission did not make any such communicate with the Plaintiff. In this manner also, the rights and entitlements of the Plaintiff have been violated. The co-workmen of the Plaintiff were given the promotion to A.E.E. on 01/01/1985 with effect from 01/10/1982 Therefore, in those circumstances the Plaintiff should also have been given the promotion to A.E.E. from 01/10/1982. Submission have been made for the Defendant Commission that the Plaintiff became eligible for the promotion to A.E.E. in 1989, and the promotion to E.E. was given to the Plaintiff from 01/01/1990. But as discussed above, the Plaintiff was disregarded from the promotion to A.E. itself, and he was wrongfully held unfit in the A.E.E. promotion interview. Therefore, the Plaintiff becomes entitled to the promotion to E.E. from 01/01/1987 and because Page 9 of 13 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Sat Nov 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 21:39:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/217/2005 ORDER DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined of that the seniority of the Plaintiff has not been maintained in comparison to the juniors who were given promotion.
9. Upon reading the deposition of Ramkumar Pandey for the Defendant, it appears that the Plaintiff was given the promotion to A.E. from 01/04/1982, to A.E.E. from 01/01/1985, to E.E. from 01/01/1990 and to Dy.S.E. from 01/01/1995. Thus, the Plaintiff has been given promotion from time to time, but as discussed above, although, there were no adverse remarks against the Plaintiff, the seniority of the Plaintiff has been disregarded by giving promotion to the juniors to the Plaintiff. In reality, the Plaintiff was entitled to the promotion to A.E. from 29/08/1980, to A.E.E from 01/10/1982, and to E.E. from 01/01/1987, but the promotion has not been given to the Plaintiff accordingly."
9. The uncontroverted facts remained that the plaintiff joined in service on 13.6.1966 as Tech. (Grade I). The plaintiff was possessing degree of Diploma in Electrical Engineering. The plaintiff and others have filed SCA No.2541 of 1980 before the Coordinate Bench of this Court, as he was not given promotion to the post of Chargeman Learned advocate appearing for the ONGC in that proceedings of SCA, has given undertaking before the Court that the plaintiff will be treated as Chargeman from 25.4.1980. Following the undertaking given by learned advocate appearing for the ONGC in the SCA, the plaintiff was given promotion of Chargeman w.e.f. 25.4.1980, then on the post of AEE w.e.f. 1.10.1982 and then on the post of EE w.e.f. 1.1.1987 as per the policy of the ONGC. The plaintiff claimed that he has not been given promotion as per his entitlement. Thus, he filed Regular Civil suit before the learned trial Court. The traces of the Regular Page 10 of 13 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Sat Nov 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 21:39:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/217/2005 ORDER DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined Civil Suit is found from the plaint of the plaintiff, where he agreed that he would accept the promotion of AEE w.e.f. 1.4.1982. It is not the case of the plaintiff that he has not been given promotion as AEE since 1.4.1982. However, he claimed that he should be promoted to this post much earlier as his juniors have been promoted, and under the policy of 12 years, he would be entitled to promotion from the year 1980.
10. The issues framed by the learned trial Court read as under:-
"1. Whether the plaintiff prove that the defendants did not illegally promote the plaintiff to the position of AEE with effect from 1985?
2. Whether the plaintiff prove that he is entitled to promotion to the post of AEE and EE?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the damages as stated in the claim?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction?"
11. The issue Nos.1 to 3 are answered in affirmative, issue No.4 in negative and issue No.5 is answered as per final order.
12. What could be noticeable from the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court that it has failed to read the pleadings of the plaintiff, where he in his plaint, has admitted that he is agreed to accept the promotion w.e.f. 1.4.1982 on the post of AE and not from the year 1980. The admission is the best piece of evidence and would operate on estoppel to Page 11 of 13 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Sat Nov 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 21:39:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/217/2005 ORDER DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined claim different relief in subsequent suit. The foundation of the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court premised upon this aspect. The learned trial Court believed that the plaintiff was entitled to get promotion from 1980 instead of 1.4.1982. The deposition of the defendant witness Mr. Ramkumar Pande at Exh.72 indicates that the plaintiff was given promotion to the post of AE on 1.4.1982 as he agreed in earlier proceedings of the Regular Civil Suit and further, he has been given promotion of AEE from 1.1.1985 and was promoted to the post of EE from 1.1.1990 and then to the post of Dy.S.E. from 1.1.1995. This factual aspect has not been contested by the plaintiff. The sole dispute between the parties was limited to the aspect that according to the plaintiff, he was entitled to get promotion from 1980 and has been erroneously given promotion from 1982 ignoring his seniority. The learned trial Court swayed away with the submission of the plaintiff ignoring admission of the plaintiff by way of undertaking in earlier civil suit. Apt to note that the plaintiff cannot claim promotion as of right and secondly, since the policy to promote an employee is based upon seniority-cum-fitness- cum-merit, it cannot be given go-bye. Merely some juniors got promotion in prior point of time, would not entitle the plaintiff to get the promotion.
13. At the cost of repetition, it can be observed that the learned trial Court committed serious error in reading factual aspects emerging from documentary evidence which goes to the root of the dispute, as the plaintiff himself was agreed to get promotion to the post of AE from 1.4.1982 in proceedings of the Regular Civil Suit No.87 of 1988. In the aforesaid Page 12 of 13 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Sat Nov 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 21:39:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/217/2005 ORDER DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined premises, according to this Court, the learned Courts below have committed serious error in understanding the factual aspect as well as statutory rules. Hence, the substantial questions of law framed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 14.10.2005 are answered in affirmative.
14. For the foregoing reasons, the second appeal stands allowed. Impugned judgment and decree dated 28.9.2004 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, Bharuch in Regular Civil Appeal No.66 of 1998 confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.4.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (JD), Ankleshwar in Regular Civil Suit No.2 of 1991 are hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, Regular Civil Suit No.2 of 1991 is dismissed.
15. Registry is directed to return back the R & P, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) SHEKHAR P. BARVE Page 13 of 13 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Sat Nov 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 21:39:44 IST 2025