Pradeep Ramji Bondade vs Life Insurance Corporation Of ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 10059 Bom

WP 6526-13                                       1                      Judgment

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                       NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
                       WRIT PETITION NO. 6526/2013

Pradeep Ramji Bondade,
Aged 51 years, Occ: Service, R/o 8, Indraprastha
Layout, Post Pratapnagar, Nagpur-24.                                 PETITIONER

                                    -VERSUS-
1.     Life Insurance Corporation of India,
       Through its Chairman, having its Office at
       LIC of India Central Office "Yogakshema'
       Building, Jeevan Bima Marg, Mumbai-32.
2.     Life Insurance Corporation of India,
       through its Executive Director (Personnel)
       having its Office at LIC of India Central
       Office, 'Yogakshema' Building, Jeevan Bima
       Marge, Mumbai - 32.
3.     Life Insurance Corporation of India,
       through its Senior Divisional Manager,
       Nagpur Division Office, National Insurance
       Building, S.V. Patel Marg, Nagpur.                   RESPONDENTS
__________________________________________________________________________
                  Shri S.P. Palshikar, counsel for the petitioner.
                 Shri P.N. Kothari, counsel for the respondents.

CORAM :       A. S. CHANDURKAR AND URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, JJ.
DATE     :    SEPTEMBER 30, 2022.
JUDGMENT        (PER : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)

The petitioner came to be appointed as an Assistant with the Life

Insurance Corporation of India in the year 1984. It is his case that he was

thereafter promoted on the post of Assistant Administrative Officer. He had

discharged his duties satisfactorily and was thus expecting a future

promotion on the post of Assistant Divisional Manager in the year 2009.

Since the petitioner was not so promoted he made a representation and put

forth his case. His request however was not considered. In the year 2012 he

again expected the orders of promotion to be issued. He was however not so WP 6526-13 2 Judgment

promoted despite the fact that promotions were effected in the year 2013.

Being aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court praying that he be

granted a deemed date of promotion in the cadre of Assistant Divisional

Manager/Senior Branch Manager from the year 2009.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we have

perused the documents on record. According to the petitioner despite being

eligible the case of the petitioner was not considered for promotion. He was

deprived of being promoted in the year 2009 for no justifiable reason. The

petitioner was more meritorious and had attained the necessary seniority for

being so promoted. Reliance was sought to be placed upon the Annual

Confidential Reports of the petitioner to substantiate this contention. By

depriving the petitioner of such promotion for no justifiable reason the

petitioner had been discriminated against.

3. According to the respondents after considering the entire service

record of the petitioner he was not found suitable for being promoted. It

was denied that with a view to discriminate against the petitioner he had not

been promoted. As per the Life Insurance Corporation (Staff) Regulations,

1960 promotions were required to be effected on the basis of merit,

suitability for the higher post and seniority as per Regulation 7(3) of the said

Regulations. Hence there was no merit in the contention of the petitioner

that the petitioner had been deprived of promotion. By filing an additional WP 6526-13 3 Judgment

affidavit it has been stated that the petitioner came to be promoted as

Assistant Divisional Manager on 21.04.2015 and the same was accepted by

him without any protest. Further the petitioner has opted for voluntary

retirement in the year 2020 and has received all service benefits.

4. On considering the documents on record in the light of rival

submissions it is clear that Regulation 7(3) of the said Regulations relates to

the promotions to the post of Assistant Divisional Manager and they are to

be effected on the basis of merit, suitability of the candidate and seniority. In

the reply filed on behalf of the respondents the manner in which the case of

the petitioner has been considered is referred to. We do not find any

material on record to hold that by not promoting the petitioner in the year

2009 he was deliberately kept out of contention. After considering the entire

service record the petitioner came to be promoted in the year 2015. We do

not find that it will be permissible for this Court to substitute its opinion in

place of the opinion expressed by the respondent-Authorities. The subjective

satisfaction of the Authorities is not shown to have been arbitrarily arrived

at. In absence of any allegations of mala fides we are not inclined to interfere

in writ jurisdiction. It is also to be noted that after being promoted on the

post of Assistant Divisional Manager in the year 2015 the petitioner has

opted for voluntary retirement in the year 2020 and he has accepted all

service benefits. For these reasons we find that the prayer for grant of

deemed date of promotion from the year 2009 cannot be granted.

WP 6526-13 4 Judgment

5. The writ petition is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.

Rule stands discharged.

       (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)         (A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)

APTE




                                                       Signed By: Digitally signed
                                                       byROHIT DATTATRAYA
                                                       APTE
                                                       Signing Date:03.10.2022 10:05