Bombay High Court
Pramod S/O Yadavrao Sirsikar vs The Chairman, Life Insurance ... on 13 November, 2025
Author: Anil S. Kilor
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
2025:BHC-NAG:11962
1 wp7675.2019..docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 7675 OF 2019
Shri Pramod s/o Yadavrao Sirsikar,
Aged about 49 yrs, Occ. Service,
R/o. 34, Saptagiri Nagar,
Narendra Nagar, Nagpur ......PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. The Chairman,
Life Insurance Corporation Of India,
Central Office, Jeevan Vima Marg,
Yogkshem Building, near Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
2. The Executive Director Personnel,
Life Insurance Corporation Of India,
Central Office, Jeevan Vima Marg,
Yogkshem Building, near Mantralaya,
Mumbai
3. The Zonal Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation Of India,
Central Office, Jeevan Vima Marg,
Yogkshem Building, near Mantralaya,
Mumbai
4. The Senior Divisional manager,
Life Insurance Corporation National
Insurance Building, S.V. Patel Marg,
Station Road, Nagpur .....RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S.P. Kshirsagar, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. P.P. Kothari, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- ANIL S. KILOR, &
RAJNISH R. VYAS, JJ.
Belkhede, PS
2 wp7675.2019..docx
RESERVED ON : 10.11.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 13.11.2025
JUDGMENT (PER : Rajnish R. Vyas)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By way of present petition, prayer is made to quash and set aside
order dated 4.6.2019, passed by respondent No.2, by which the representation
submitted by the petitioner was rejected observing that request for grant of
promotion to the cadre of Administrative Officer from deemed dated
30.4.2011, cannot be considered.
3. The petitioner entered into service with Department of Life
Insurance Corporation of India as Assistant Typist in the year 1989. He was
then promoted to the Higher Grade Assistant, in the year 1996, and in the year
2004, was selected for the post of Assistant Administrator Officer. According to
him, he was entitled for promotion to the post of Branch Manager but same
was denied to him. He further contended that his Annual Confidential Reports
("ACRs) were "good" and had this reports been communicated to him, he
would have received an opportunity to improve himself. Though his ACR's
were not communicated to him, same were taken into consideration while
passing the impugned order. It is a specific case of the petitioner that ACR's
ought to have been informed to him. He accordingly invited our attention to
Belkhede, PS
3 wp7675.2019..docx
the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India and
Others (2008(8)SC 725); Sukhdev Singh Vs. Union of India, (2013(9) SCC
566; and Rukhsana Shaheen Khan Vs. Union of India [(AIR 2018 SC (suppl)
1252 ].
4. The petitioner has earlier filed Writ Petition No. 580/2024 since
promotion was denied to him. In the said petition, the petitioner had sought
directions to the respondents fro granting him deemed date promotion along
with all consequential benefits. The said writ petition was decided on
28.3.2019 in which the petitioner contended that promotion could not have
been denied to him on the ground of uncommunicated adverse entries in
Annual Confidential Report. The Court observed that there is no dispute about
the fact that during pendency of said petition, the promotion was granted and
which has been given to petitioner by following the law crystallized by Hon'ble
Apex Court in cases of Dev Dutta and Sukhdev Singh, cited supra. The Court
further observed that in memo of said writ petition there was no specific
pleadings made showing that he is entitled to be promoted from particular
date. Thus, liberty was given to the petitioner to make a representation
seeking giving of promotion to him from a particular date. He then submitted
representation on 11.4.2016 which was then rejected on 4.6.2019 illegally.
Belkhede, PS
4 wp7675.2019..docx
5. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondents contends that the
issue cannot be decided only on the basis of non communication of
Confidential Report but prior to that the numerical rating of the petitioner be
also considered which would clearly reveal that marks obtained by the
petitioner were less than the marks obtained by the last selected candidate in
main round. He then submits that the petitioner was rightly promoted in the
year 2014 to the cadre of Administrative Officer on the criteria of merit,
suitability and seniority. According to the respondent/State, petitioner was
promoted at the appropriate time, when he was found fit as per provisions of
regulation 7 of the Staff Regulation, 1960 and therefore, request for grant of
deem date of promotion i.e. 30.4.2011 was not permissible.
6. We have perused the record and heard learned respective counsels.
If the impugned order dated 4.6.2019 is perused, it would be crystal clear that
while considering the issue regarding grant of promotion, the authority have
taken into consideration numerical rating and it was the basis for non selection
of the petitioner for promotion. For ready reference, the chart which is part of
impugned order is reproduced herein below:
Year of Promotion Petitioner Marks obtained by Marks obtained
promotion year working in the last selected by Shri P.Y.
Zone candidate in main Sirsikar
round
2011 2011-12 WZ 59.60 50.40
2012 2012-13 WZ 59.70 54.80
2013 2013-14 WZ 59.57 57.00
Belkhede, PS
5 wp7675.2019..docx
The aforesaid chart would make it clear that petitioner has secured
less marks than obtained by last selected candidate. The contention of the
petitioner that he was not made aware about the aforesaid marks given, cannot
be accepted, as it is not based on any pleadings. Even otherwise, petition was
filed in the year 2019 and thereafter, no counter affidavit was filed by the
petitioner to substantiate his stand. The respondent authority have rightly
considered that petitioner was promoted in the year 2014 to the cadre of
Administrative Officer on criteria of merit, suitability and seniority and
therefore, he was entitled from that date only and was not entitled from
30.4.2011 in view of Staff Regulations, 1960.
7. The law laid down by the judgments cited supra that confidential
reports are required to be communicated to the employee within reasonable
time and communication of adverse entry only is not enough, cannot be
disputed. Fact remains that petitioner secured less marks than last selected
candidate and therefore, granting of promotion and consequential benefits
from 2014 cannot be said to be illegal.
8. In light of above, since no case is made out for interference as
hence, petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.)
Belkhede, PS
