Shri R.K. Mehra vs United India Insurance Co.
2009 Latest Caselaw 3356 Del

*                  HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI

                   Judgment reserved on : August 13, 2009
                   Judgment delivered on : August 25, 2009

+                       W.P. (C) No.1416/1997

%      Shri R.K. Mehra                           ...   Petitioner
                   Through:     Mr. Puneet Agrawal and Mr. Arvind Kumar
                                Sharma, Advocates.

                                   versus

    United India Insurance Co.               ...  Respondent
                 Through:   Mr. A.K. De, Advocate
CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

1.     Whether the Reporters of local
       papers may be allowed to see
       the judgment?

2.     To be referred to Reporter or not?

3.     Whether the judgment should be
       reported in the Digest?

SUNIL GAUR, J.

1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition against his non-promotion and

also against his apprehended transfer. The second relief pertaining to

apprehended transfer has become infructuous. However, the first relief still

survives for consideration.

2. Petitioner had joined the Respondent - Insurance Company, as a

Branch Manager and on 23rd July, 1981, he was placed under suspension

due to a CBI Inquiry and on the basis of the CBI Inquiry, Petitioner had

faced a criminal trial and ultimately, he claims that he was acquitted.

Eventually, vide order of 27th January, 1986, his suspension from service

was revoked and thereafter, Petitioner had agitated his claim for

W.P. (C) No.1416/1997 Page 1 promotion. The seniority list, relied upon by the Petitioner is (Annexure-E),

in which the name of the Petitioner figures at Serial No.9.

3. The grievance of the Petitioner is that his juniors have been

promoted and the names of the juniors find mention in para 13 and 14 of

the writ petition. Despite Representations, Annexure-I (Colly.), grievance of

the Petitioner was not redressed, which led the Petitioner to file this

petition.

4. Counter affidavit of the Respondent reveals that the promotion is

made not only on seniority basis, but merit based on Performance

Appraisals is duly considered. According to the Respondent, case of the

Petitioner was considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Manager, in

the year 1989, and he was not found suitable. In response to para 13 and

14 of the writ petition, it has been stated by the Respondent that the

performance of the juniors of the Petitioner was better and so they were

promoted. It is pointed out by the Respondent that under Rule 10.2 of the

Promotion Policy, review of the promotion made, can be sought by the

aggrieved officer, but the Petitioner had not sought any such review of the

promotions made from time to time and this petition is without any basis

and deserves dismissal.

5. After having heard both the sides and upon perusal of the material

on record, this court finds that the writ petition is quite vague and the

response filed to it is equally vague. As late as in January, 2002, some

specific instances have been pointed out by the Petitioner by filing two

additional affidavits. Alongwith additional affidavit of January, 2002, copy of

W.P. (C) No.1416/1997 Page 2 Seniority List of Assistant Manager, as on 1st March, 2000 has been placed

on record, as Annexure-B. Petitioner asserts in his additional affidavit that

in the year 1976, he was eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant

Manager and he was at Serial No.1 in the seniority list of the year 2000. In

the second additional affidavit of October, 2002, there is a reference to the

subsequent events and vide C.M. No.1623/2002, stay of the process of

promotion was also sought by the Petitioner, which was not granted. In any

case, the additional affidavits pertaining to subsequent events need not be

looked into in the first instance, as it pertains to consequential benefits.

6. The Apex Court in "State of Uttar Pradesh

Vs. Jalal Uddin and Ors.", (2005) 1 SCC 169 on promotional prospects has

observed as under:

"In all services, whether public or private there is invariably a hierarchy of posts comprising of higher posts and lower posts.

Promotion, as understood under the Service Law Jurisprudence, is advancement in rank, grade or both and no employee has right to be promoted, but has a right to be considered for promotion."

7. In the light of the aforesaid, what is required to be seen is, as to

whether the Petitioner is entitled to the main relief or not. It is not clearly

brought out in the petition as to for which post the promotions were made

after the year 1986, i.e., after the revocation of the suspension of the

Petitioner. The juniors, who were being promoted are not a party to this

petition. Moreover, Petitioner has a right to be considered for promotion

and it is the case of the Respondent that the Petitioner was, in fact,

considered for promotion and the promotion policy (Annexure R-1) is on

W.P. (C) No.1416/1997 Page 3 the seniority-cum-merit basis. By means of additional affidavits, counsel for

the petitioner has belatedly tried to give some facts but in vain, as various

orders promoting juniors of petitioner, from time to time, are not impugned

in this petition. In any case, the promotion of the juniors of the Petitioner

cannot be upset without they being made the parties to this petition. There

is no challenge to the promotion policy, nor there is an effective challenge

to the manner, in which promotions have been made by the Respondent.

8. In the light of the aforesaid, I am of the considered view that this

petition lacks substance. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.

9. No costs.

Sunil Gaur, J.

August 25, 2009
pkb




W.P. (C) No.1416/1997                                                   Page 4