Delhi High Court
Shri Anand Kumar Rakesh vs United India Insurance Company Limited ... on 28 February, 2025
Author: C.Hari Shankar
Bench: C.Hari Shankar
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on:12th February, 2025
Date of Decision:28th February, 2025
+ LPA 251/2022 & CM APPL. 17494/2022, CM APPL.
17496/2022
SHRI ANAND KUMAR RAKESH .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Rakesh Talukdar, Mr.
Ashray Chopra, Mr. Ashutosh Singh, Mr.
Aviral Bansal, Mr. Udit Bansal and Ms.
Shivi Dwivedi, Advs.
versus
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED &
ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Ms. K
Enatoli Sema, Mr. Prang Newmai and Ms.
Chubalemla Chang, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
JUDGMENT
%
AJAY DIGPAUL, J.
1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed under Clause
X of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Delhi, challenging the
order dated 05.08.2021, passed in W.P.(C) 7781/2021, whereby the
learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order
passed by the respondent corporation, which accepted the appellant's
application for voluntary separation.
2. To appreciate the present controversy, it is necessary to outline
the facts of the case. The appellant was employed with the respondent
corporation from the year 1989 and held the position of Deputy
Manager, Scale-III. According to a promotion order dated 06.09.2016,
the appellant was promoted to the position of Manager (Scale-IV).
However, the appellant did not assume charge at the designated place
of posting in Bhopal. Subsequently, on 19.09.2016, the appellant, vide
email, submitted a grievance to the respondent corporation, asserting
therein his inability to accept the promotion offer on account of the
allegedly arbitrary transfer of his posting to Bhopal.
3. The refusal to accept the promotion was duly recorded by the
respondent corporation in an order dated 20.04.2017, which records
thus:
"Re: Promotion Refusal- P.E. 2016-17 within Class I Officers
(Upto Scale V)
Reference is invited to our Circular No. 48 dated 27.04.2016
declaring vacancies for promotion to the Cadre upto Scale-V and
circulars dated 29.07.2016 declaring the final selection list of
Officers for promotion to the Cadres of II, III, IV & V (both under
Normal Channel and Fast Track Channel) under the Promotion
Exercise 2016-17. We also refer subsequent Promotion Orders
issued to the Promotee Officers both under Main List and
Contingency List till March 2017.
The following is list of Officers who have refused the offer of
promotion under the Promotion Exercise 2016-17.
REFUSAL OF PROMOTION TO THE CADRE OF CHIEF
MANAGER (SCALE V)
Sl. Emp. No. Name of the Officer Present Region
No. (S/Shri/Ms.) Office
1 25479 T. Wilson DO 3 Hyderabad
Hyderabad
REFUSAL OF PROMOTION TO THE CADRE OF MANAGER
(SCALE IV)
Sl. Emp. Name of the Officer Present Region
No. No. (S/Shri/Ms.) Office
1 27022 Anand Kumar Rakesh RO 1 New RO 1-
Delhi Delhi
2 25481 A. Chakrabarti DO23 RO 1-Delhi
Devika
Towers
xxx
As per Para-21 of the Promotion Policy for Officers 2006 and
further amendments, such refusals shall be taken into account
when considering their case for promotion for subsequent one
Promotion Exercise."
4. Thereafter, the respondent corporation issued another
promotion order dated 03.08.2018 to the post of Manager (Scale IV)
with a posting at Chandigarh. The appellant again declined to accept
this transfer. Consequently, an order dated 26.04.2019 was passed by
the respondent corporation, recording the appellant's second refusal,
which reads thus:
Re: Promotion Refusals- P.E. 2018-19 within Class I Officers (Upto
Scale V)
Reference is invited to our Circular No. 42 dated 19.04.2018 declaring
vacancies for promotion to the Cadre upto Scale-V and circulars dated
25.06.2018 declaring the final selection list of Officers for promotion to
the Cadre of Scale V (both under Normal Channel and Fast Track
Channel) and circulars dated 03.08.2018 declaring the final selection list
of Officers for promotion to the Cadres of Scales II, III, IV (both under
Normal Channel and Fast Track Channel) under the Promotion Exercise
2018-19. We also refer subsequent Promotion Orders issued to the
Promotee Officers both under Main List and Contingency List.
The following is the list of Officers who have refused the offer of
promotion under the Promotion Exercise 2018-19.
REFUSAL OF PROMOTION TO THE CADRE OF CHIEF MANAGER
(SCALE-V) UNDER NORMAL CHANNEL.
Sl. No. Emp. No. Name of the Officer Present Region
(Shri/Ms.) Office
1 20514 Dayal Sharan Avasthi DO 3 RO Lucknow
Kanpur
REFUSAL OF PROMOTION TO THE CADRE OF MANAGER (SCALE
IV) UNDER NORMAL CHANNEL.
Sl. Emp. No. Name of the Officer Present Region
No. (S/Shri/Ms.) Office
1. 27022 Anand Kumar RO 1 Delhi RO 1 Delhi
Rakesh
2. 22539 Praddep K Chhabra Service Hub, RO
RO Chandigarh
Chandigarh
3. 21536 Amar Nath BO Naraina RO 2 Delhi
xxx
As per Para-21 of the Promotion Policy for Officers 2006 and further
amendments, such refusals shall be taken into account when considering
their case for promotion for subsequent one Promotion Exercise."
5. It is relevant to note that a „Promotion Policy for Officers‟ was
initially formulated by the respondent corporation, which governed the
promotional avenues for its officers. However, this policy was
superseded by the „Promotion Policy for Officers-2006‟ („the 2006
Policy‟).
6. The respondent corporation had introduced a scheme titled
General Insurance (Public Sector) Officer‟s Golden Gate Scheme for
Voluntary Separation, 20091, which applied to officers up to Scale VI.
The scheme outlines the rationale and objectives underlying its
introduction and set forth the provisions governing its implementation.
The purpose of the Scheme, along with the relevant clauses pertaining
to eligibility criteria and general conditions, are extracted hereunder:
"1. Introduction and Preamble-
Para 17 of the Promotion Policy for Officers-2006 provide for
officers superseded in promotion in 3 consecutive promotion
exercises to be excluded from the zone of consideration for two
immediately succeeding promotional exercises. In addition, for
officers in Scale VII cadre also, in terms of the Guidelines for
Appointment of Chief Executives of Public Sector Insurance
Companies, as approved by the Department of Personnel and
Training, Government of India, not more than 3 chances are
available for inclusion in the zone of consideration and appearing
in the interview for selection to the post CMD, if otherwise eligible.
In May, 2006 when the 1st Approach Paper for initiating debate on
evolving the Promotion Policy for Officers-2006 was floated, and
the idea leading to para 17 as aforesaid, was expressed, it was also
indicated therein that the basic purpose of the said paragraph is to
introduce the element of continuous shuffling of the manpower
before subjecting it to the process of sieve for the purpose of
selecting the best available manpower for undertaking the higher
responsibilities. It was understood that once the person is sieved
out and rested for two exercises, an opportunity would be made
available to him to have self-assessment also including an
introspection with the view to decide if, having regard to his
potential, capabilities, strengths and weaknesses, ambitions,
personal and family obligations, health conditions, aptitude,
enthusiasm. The changed scenario at the workplace, technological
advancements etc., in his own opinion, he feels, he should seek an
honorable exit from the Company with or without the option of an
alternative employment elsewhere. To cater the need of those
officers who find the answer to this poser in the alternative, it was
envisaged to construct a „Golden Gate‟ to enable such officers to
opt for an honorable exit from the Company. In other words, the
Golden Gate seeks to provide a Voluntary Separation Scheme for
specified class of officers in the mutual interests of these officers,
the other officers and the Company itself, in the long run.
"the Scheme", hereinafter
xxx
"4. Eligibility.-
(a) All permanent full-time officers up to Scale VI will be eligible to
seek Voluntary Separation under this Scheme provided they have
attained the age of 50 years, are facing or have faced exclusion
from the zone of consideration for promotion to the next higher
cadre as a result of operation of para 17 of the Promotion Policy
for Officers-2006 and opt for availing of the Scheme. It shall also
apply to Scale VII officers, who have completed 50 years of age,
have been empanelled on 3 occasions for being interviewed
(irrespective of whether they have attended it or not) for selection
to the post of CMD, and opt for availing of the Scheme.
xxx
8. General Conditions.-
i. An Officer opting for Voluntary Separation under this Scheme
shall make an application as per Appendix A, in triplicate through
a proper channel addressed to the Competent Authority.
xxx
iv. Mere submission of application by an officer seeking Voluntary
Separation under this Scheme shall not be construed to mean such
Separation having taken effect until and unless the Competent
Authority accepts in writing.
v. An officer shall not be eligible to withdraw his or her
application for Voluntary Separation under this Scheme after
acceptance of the same by the Competent Authority.
xxx
7. By way of a notice dated 20.03.2019, the respondent
corporation amended the eligibility criteria under the Scheme,
extending its applicability to officers up to Scale-IV who had been
superseded in three consecutive promotional exercises. Subsequently,
on 24.07.2019, another notification was issued by the respondent
corporation declaring that the Scheme would remain in force only
until 31.10.2019, beyond which it would be withdrawn sine die.
8. Thereafter, through a notice dated 28.10.2019, the respondent
corporation directed that the applications under the Scheme must be
submitted on or before 31.10.2019.
9. In the interregnum, on 31.10.2019, the appellant voluntarily
submitted his application for voluntary separation by availing the
Scheme of the respondent corporation. At the time of availing the
Scheme, the appellant tendered the following undertaking in the form
of Appendix-A:
xxx
Sub: Voluntary Separation
I hereby offer to seek Voluntary Separation from the services of the
Company in accordance with the "General Insurance (Public
Sector) Officer‟s Golden Gate Scheme for Voluntary Separation,
2009" as approved by the Board of the Company.
I have carefully read and understood the contents of the Scheme
and I accept the terms and conditions stipulated therein,
unconditionally.
I furnish the requisite particulars in the Annexure enclosed for
consideration of my offer to seek Voluntary Separation from the
services of the Company under the above Scheme.
I hereby agree to vacate the Company owned residential
accommodation/leased accommodation within two months from the
date of my relieving from the Company‟s services.
I hereby authorize the Company to recover and adjust all
loans/dues etc. from my terminal benefits including ex-gratia.
10. The respondent corporation, after due consideration, accepted
the appellant‟s application for voluntary separation under the Scheme
on 27.11.2019, thereby terminating the appellant‟s services with effect
from 29.11.2019. The same was communicated to the appellant via
email on 27.11.2019. The letter dated 27.11.2019 is reproduced as
under:
xxx
"RE: GOLDEN GATE SCHEME FOR VOLUNTARY
SEPARATION OF OFFICERS SH. RAKESH KUMAR ANAND,
DY. MANAGER, EMP. NO. 27022, DRO-1
We refer to your application dated 31.10.2019 seeking exit under
the above scheme. The Competent Authority has accepted the
application for exit under the above scheme.
Accordingly, you stand relieved from the services of the company
at the close of the office hours on 29.11.2019."
11. The appellant, through emails dated 29.11.2019, 06.12.2019
and 09.12.2019, objected to the acceptance of his application and
sought to challenge the termination of his services under the Scheme.
The E-mail dated 29.11.2019 sent by the appellant is reproduced
herein:
" DEAR SIR/MADAM,
AT THE OUTSET I HAVE TO SUBMIT THAT:-
1 I AM TO AGAIN BRING ON RECORD THAT I HAVE
WRITTEN NO LESS THAT 132+ MAILS AGAINST STEP
MOTHERLY TREATMENT METED OUT TO ME OVER PERIOD
OF TIME, WHICH IS ON YOUR RECORD WITH YOUR
GOODSELVES VIA EMAIL, SMSs ETC.;
2 INSPITE OF THE MALAFIDE EFFORTS MADE BY
SOME VESTED INTERESTS IN THE ORGANIZATION, THE
UNDERSIGNED THROUGH HIS SHEER GRIT &
DETERMINATION WAS ABLE TO CLEAR THE EXAMINATIONS
AND GOT THE PROMOTION DUE TO HIM;
3 DESPITE HAVING CLEARED THE EXAMINATIONS, TO
THE UTTER DISPLEASURE OF THE VESTED INTEREST IN
THE ORGANIZATION AND WITH INTENT TO VENT THEIR
ANGER AGAINST THE UNDERSIGNED, THIS GROUP
MANAGED TO GET THE UNDERSIGNED POSTED OUT OF
DELHI IN 1916, AS AGAINST PEER GROUP BATCHMATES &
DESPITE NOT BEING COVERED IN THE POLICY
"ACCORDINGLY INNUMERABLE NUMBER OF
REPRESENTATIONS/ESCALATIONS WERE MADE WHICH ARE
ON RECORD WITH YOU". SINCE NO WRITTEN
COMMUNICATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED REBUTTING
MY REQUEST SUBMISSIONS FOR NOT POSTING ME OUT
& DULY RETAINING ME OF DELHI, IT IS BETTER
PRESUMED THAT THEY ARE STILL UNDER
CONSIDERATION @ PUC;
4 THE VESTED INTERESTS IN THE ORGANIZATION
HAVE DELIBERATELY CONSIDERED MY REQUESTS FOR RE-
CONSIDERATION OF POSTING OUTSIDE DELHI AS
REFUSAL TO PROMOTION, WHICH HAVE BEEN DULY
COUNTERED BY ME VIDE MY LETTERS ON RECORD WITH
YOUR GOODSELVES.
5 IT HAS COME TO MY NOTICE THAT THE SMS/EMAIL
SENT BY THE UNDERSIGNED THREATENING TO SEEK SVRS
IN CASE MY AFOREMENTIONED REQUEST IS NOT
ACCEDED TO, IS BEING CONSTRUDED/ CONSIDERED AS
REQUEST FOR SEEKING SVRS. HOWEVER, THE
CONTENTIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT ARE VOID ABNITIO,
BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING REASONS-
THE SCHEME STIPULATES AN APPROPRIATE NOTIFIED
FORM TO BE FILLED IN TRIPLICATE IN WHICH
SIGNATURES OF INDEPENDENT WITNESS APPENDED
THEREON.
THE SYSTEM HAS BEEN PUT IN PLACE SO AS TO ENSURE
INDEPENDENT & VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE OF
OFFICIALS/OFFICERS TO SEEK SUCH PREMATURE
RETIREMENT "IS NOT UNDER COERCION"
IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ABOVE FACTS THAT THE VESTED
INTERESTS IN THE ORGANIZATION ARE HELL BENT UPON
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE UNDERSIGNED AND ARE
USING ALL OPPORTUNITIES TO HAMPER MY CAREER
AS PER MY KNOWLEDGE THE STIPULATED FORM ON
EXPLICIT RECOMMENDATION I∑ TO BE COVERED,
CONTROLLING LOCAL OFFICE "AS STIPULATED OFFICER‟
AS STIPULATED UNDER THE RELEVANT SCHEME HAS NOT
BEEN MADE BY THE UNDERSIGNED, IT IS LEGALLY
UNTENABLE TO ASSURE THAT I HAD APPLIED FOR
GOLDEN GATE
6 IT IS EVIDENT FROM ABOVE MENTIONED FACTS
THAT UNDERSIGNED HAS BEEN COERCED &
DISCRIMINATED AGAINST SPECIFICALLY WITH ULTERIOR
MOTIVES.
7 CONTENT MISCONSTRUED AS MY APPLICATION FOR
GOLDENGATE, MAY PLEASE BE CORRECTED FOR GOOD/IF
REQUIRED BE TAKEN AS WITHDRAWN
8 IT ESTABLISHES THE DISCRIMINATORY & MALAFIDE
AGAINST THE UNDERSIGNED BY VESTED INTEREST IN THE
ORGANIZATION IN MARRING MY CAREER
9 UNDERSIGNED BELONGING TO SC COMMUNITY HAS
WORKED WITH UTMOST HONESTY & DEDICATION OVER A
PERIOD OF 3 DECADES IN THIS ORGANIZATION HAVE
ALWAYS KEPT THE INTEGRITY AS A BONAFIDE OFFICER
HIGH & HAS NEVER INSPITE OF BEING PERPETRATED
WITH ACTUSREAS RAMPANT UNBUREAUCRATIC HR, PNJ
WRONGS, WITH VIRTUAL CONCERTED MENSREA
TARGETING ME AS A WHISTLE BLOWER HAS HAD NEVER
THOUGHT OF APPROACHING THE OTHERWISE STATUTORY
FORUMS AVAILABLE TO ME LIKE SCHEDULED CASTE
COMMISSION, PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSION ON
SCHEDULED CASTE ETC. UNDERSIGNED STILL HOLDING
FAITH IN REQUISITE BENEVOLENCE/Y AT DESIRABLE
LEVELS OF CORPORATE HIERARCHY, EVEN NOW TRUST I
SHALL NOT BE FORCED TO RESORT TO THEM, NOW
ON RECORD HUMBLY FORMALLY SUBMITTED @ ANAND
KUMAR RAKESH @ 27022"
12. The appellant challenged the acceptance of his voluntary
separation application, by way of Writ Petition bearing no. 7781/2021
filed before learned Single Judge of this Court, in which the presently
impugned order has been passed.
13. By the impugned judgment dated 05.08.2021, the learned
Single Judge, dismissed the writ petition, holding that no grounds for
interference with the impugned decision had been made out. The
impugned judgment is reproduced hereunder:
xxx
"1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the
communication dated November 27, 2019 of the respondent No. 1
Company whereby the application of the petitioner dated October
31, 2019 seeking exit under the Golden Gate Scheme for Voluntary
Separation of Officers was accepted.
2. Mr. I.S. Bakshi, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner would submit that a Scheme calling "Golden Gate
Scheme for Voluntary Separation of Officer" was issued which
contemplated that application in triplicate to be submitted to the
Head office for grant of the voluntary separation. The petitioner,
though had sent a communication dated October 31, 2019, had
never intended to seek separation from the respondent corporation.
According to him, the application, as is clear from page 71, was
sent at 18.37 Hrs. beyond office hours and was not even properly
receipted. He submits that the petitioner was not even fulfilling the
eligibility for seeking a voluntary separation inasmuch as, it is
those officers who have not got promotion for consecutively three
years, who can seek the separation. He states, petitioner having got
two promotions could not have sought voluntary separation.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Abhishek K. Gola, counsel
appearing for the respondent has by drawing my attention to Pages
90-94 states, the application was submitted by the petitioner
through his official e-mail, i.e., [email protected] and
the same was submitted in the format as required by the
respondent and was addressed to the CMD of the respondent No.
1Organisation. The application itself reads that he (petitioner) has
read and understood the contents of the scheme and he accepts the
conditions stipulated therein unconditionally. That apart, in
Annexure to Appendix-A, the petitioner gives all his particulars,
including his name, date of birth, date of joining the Corporation
etc. That apart, he has also filled Appendix B which is a
nomination form, making his wife as his nominee.
4. In other words, the application having been submitted with
open eyes and understanding of the scheme, it cannot be said by
the petitioner that he never intended to submit the same. That
apart, Mr. Gola has highlighted reasons that prompted the
petitioner to submit the application, inasmuch as the petitioner
initially got promotion to the cadre of Manager in the year 2016
with posting at Bhopal. The petitioner did not join his place of
posting at Bhopal, which resulted in the cancellation of the same
and the petitioner continued on the post of Deputy Manager. In this
regard, he has also drawn my attention to an order dated April 20,
2017 issued by the respondent corporation under the heading
KALRA
Signing Date:01.03.2025
12:59:41
"Promotion Refusals-P.E. 2016-17 within Class-I Officers (up to
Scale V), wherein the name of the petitioner features.
5. That apart, a further promotion order was issued to the
post of Manager in the year 2018 with posting order at
Chandigarh, which also post of Manager in the year 2018 with
posting order at Chandigarh, which also was refused by the
petitioner as is clear form Page 66 of the paper-book and an order
dated April 26, 2019 was issued by the respondent corporation in
that regard. The submission of Mr. Gola is, the promotion/ posting
of the petitioner outside Delhi was the reason prompted him to
seek the voluntary separation from the Company. He states, it is
more than one year since, the impugned order is passed and this
Court would not like to interfere with the same.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, suffice to
state, the submission made by Mr. Bakshi that the petitioner did
not intend to submit the application for voluntary separation; the
application submitted by him was not within the office hours; not
in triplicate; not receipted, are not convincing as the application
was submitted by him with clear understanding of the terms of the
Scheme and knowing well its consequences. The reasons can be the
grounds for the respondent to reject the application and not for the
petitioner to set at nought the very application which was given by
him seeking voluntary separation.
7. The plea of Mr. Bakshi that the petitioner was not even
eligible for being considered for voluntary separation is untenable,
when he himself stated that he had understood the conditions
stipulated therein, which follows on reading of the conditions, he
was clear that he fulfils the conditions. The plea that the petitioner
got promotions on three occasions, as such, is not eligible and is
without merit. He having refused promotions shall mean he has
been superseded which is a ground for seeking voluntary cessation.
Further, it is not the case of the petitioner that before the
communication dated November 27, 2019, was received by him, he
has expressed his intention to withdraw his application for
voluntary separation, I am of the view that the petitioner has not
made out any case for interference with the impugned order.
I do not see any merit in the petition.
The same is dismissed."
14. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 5 August 2021 of the learned
Single Judge, the appellant is before us in appeal.
15. In light of the foregoing facts and circumstances, the following
issues arise for determination before this Court:
(i) Whether the appellant was superseded in terms of the
Golden Gate Scheme for Voluntary Separation of
Officers;
(ii) Whether the subsequent withdrawal of the application for
voluntary separation is legally sustainable.
(iii) Whether the appellant‟s application was made in
accordance with the relevant rules and in the prescribed
manner.
16. The contentions advanced by the appellant are that he never
intended to seek voluntary separation and that did not meet the
eligibility criteria under the Scheme, as he had been recommended for
promotion in 2016 and 2018 but was unable to accept the same due to
transfers. It is further asserted that his application did not comply with
the mandatory procedural requirements under the Scheme, thereby
rendering it void ab initio. Additionally, the appellant submits that he
had sought to withdraw the application and had no intention of
submitting the same.
17. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent contended
that the appellant was duly eligible under the Scheme, having refused
promotions in 2016 and 2018, leading to his supersession. The
appellant, part of the 2009 Deputy Managers‟ batch, became eligible
for consideration in the last three years, with the following outcomes:
a. Promotion Exercise 2017-18- not promoted, while juniors
were promoted.
b. Promotion Exercise 2018-19- promoted, but the appellant
did not accept the promotion, and juniors were promoted.
c. Promotion Exercise 2019-20- not promoted, with juniors
promoted.
18. It is asserted that the appellant voluntarily and unconditionally
applied for separation on 31.10.2019, submitting all requisite details,
including a declaration confirming his acceptance of the terms of the
Scheme. As per Claus IV and V of the Scheme, once an application is
accepted by the competent authority, it becomes final and irrevocable,
rendering the appellant‟s withdrawal request on 29.11.2019 legally
impermissible.
19. The respondent further argues that the writ petition was filed
after an inordinate delay of 614 days, and as per Union of India v N.
Murugesan2, such delay constitutes acquiescence and waiver of
rights, thereby disentitling a party to equitable relief. Reliance is
placed on Secy., Techincal Education, U.P. v Lalit Mohan
Upadhyay3 and Air India Express Ltd. v Gurdarshan Kaur Sandhu4,
to assert that once resignation is accepted, it attains finality. The
Scheme, being a binding contractual agreement, precludes the
appellant from retracting his application, and no interference is
warranted in the present appeal.
(2022) 2 SCC 25
(2007) 4 SCC 492
(2019) 17 SCC 129
ANALYSIS
20. To adjudicate upon the Issue No. (i) (supra), it is necessary to
examine the precise meaning of supersession, as contemplated under
the Scheme. The term supersession assumes significance in the
present case, as the eligibility of the appellant under the Scheme
hinges upon whether he was superseded in the manner prescribed
therein. The Explanation to the amended eligibility clause provides a
clear and unequivocal definition of supersession, which is enunciated
in the notice dated 20.03.2019, reproduced hereunder:
"NOTICE
Re: Golden Gate Scheme- Review of Eligibility Criteria for
Officers upto Scale IV
The General Insurance (Public Sector) Officers' Golden Gate
Scheme for Voluntary Separation, 2009 has been approved by the
Board of our Company and implemented vide our circular
Ref:HO:PER:Cir:58, 1st December, 2009.
Clause (a) of paragraph 4 (Eligibility) of the General Insurance
(Public Sector) Officers' Golden Gate Scheme for Voluntary
Separation, 2009 on eligibility criteria for opting voluntary
separation from the services of the Company prescribes that
Officers who have attained the age of 50 years and have been
excluded from the ZoC due to operation of Para 17 of the
Promotion Policy can avail this Scheme. However, due to scrapping
of Written Test under Normal Channel from PE 2019-20 vide
11 Amendment to the Promotion Policy for Officers 2006, Para 17
of the said Policy ceased to be applicable to Officers upto Scale IV.
Hence, in order to retain the eligibility of officers upto the cadres of
Scale IV, who have been superceded in promotion in three
consecutive promotional exercises, under the Scheme, suitable
modification of the eligibility clause was recommended.
The Board of our Company has accorded approval for insertion of
following proviso and Explanation thereto under clause (a) of
Paragraph 4 of the General Insurance (Public Sector) Officers'
Golden Gate Scheme for Voluntary Separation, 2009 as under:
"Provided that with effect from implementation of 11th Amendment
of the Promotion Policy for Officers, 2006, in respect of Officers
upto the cadre of Scale IV, the words, "are facing or have faced
exclusion from the zone of consideration for promotion to the next
higher cadre as a result of operation of para 17 of the Promotion
Policy for Officers. 2006" shall be replaced with the words, "have
been superseded in promotion in three consecutive promotional
exercises".
Explanation:
For the purpose of this clause, an officer 'A' shall be deemed to have
been superceded if, in a particular year, another officer junior to
him in the seniority list for that cadre has been promoted to the
higher cadre, but 'A' has not been promoted."
This is for the information of all concerned.
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER"
21. Thus, the determinative factor for supersession under the
Scheme is whether an officer‟s junior in the same cadre has been
promoted while the officer himself has not been. The explanation
underscores the principle that non-promotion, despite the promotion
of juniors, is sufficient to constitute supersession, irrespective of
whether the officer declined or failed to avail the opportunity for
promotion.
22. Emphasis is placed on the note dated 26.11.2019, which
purportedly records the factual position concerning his eligibility
under the Scheme. The said note acknowledges that the appellant had
submitted his application under the Scheme on 31.10.2019.
Furthermore, it is noted that the Vigilance Department had granted
clearance for his application vide its letter dated 14.11.2019, and the
appellant was found to be eligible under the promotional exercise
criteria prescribed under the Scheme. The note further delineates the
appellant‟s promotional history over the preceding years, which is
reproduced hereunder:
xxx
i. Promotion Exercise 2017-18- Not Promoted and Juniors Promoted
ii. Promotion Exercise 2018-19- Promoted but not accepted the
promotion and juniors promoted.
iii. Promotion Exercise 2019-20- Not Promoted and Juniors
Promoted."
23. These instances establish that the appellant was superseded
thrice, thereby fulfilling the eligibility criteria under the Scheme.
24. In light of the foregoing, it is evident that the appellant, by his
own volition, refused to avail the promotions extended to him. His
non-acceptance of promotions, coupled with the fact that his juniors
were promoted in the same promotional exercises, and he remained in
the same cadre, squarely brings him within the ambit of supersession
as defined under the Scheme. Notable, paragraph 7 of the promotion
letter dated 06.09.2016 explicitly provides as under:
xxx
"7. In case of failing to report at your place of posting on or
before 26.09.2016, this offer of promotion shall stand
automatically withdrawn, irrespective of the reasons there for. The
same will be treated as non-acceptance of promotion and the
officer selected under contingency list will be considered against
your non-acceptance."
xxx
25. Now, proceeding to the examination of Issues (ii) and (iii)
(supra), it is evident that no assertion has been made regarding any
intention to withdraw application for voluntary separation prior to the
receipt of the communication dated 27.11.2019. Once the application
was duly accepted by the competent authority, any subsequent attempt
at withdrawal becomes legally impermissible, as explicitly stipulated
under sub-clauses (iv) and (v) of Clause 8 of the Scheme extracted
(supra). The contractual framework governing the Scheme, being
binding in nature, does not permit unilateral retraction once
acceptance has been duly communicated.
26. The contention of the appellant that his application under the
Scheme was submitted under duress, frustration, or compelling
circumstances is devoid of merit.
27. Once an application for voluntary separation is submitted with
full knowledge and awareness, it cannot subsequently be withdrawn
on the mere assertion of emotional distress. The sanctity of contractual
obligations and the finality of administrative decisions must be upheld
to prevent abuse of process and unwarranted retraction of binding
commitments.
28. As regards the issue of allege non-compliance with the
prescribed rules, the Scheme itself mandates that an application for
voluntary separation be submitted with full knowledge and
understanding of its consequences. In the present case, the appellant‟s
application was duly submitted in the prescribed format and contained
all requisite particulars, including personal details, a duly executed
nomination form, and an unequivocal declaration affirming his
acceptance of the terms and conditions of the Scheme.
29. Upon a meticulous examination of the general conditions
prescribing the procedural requirements for submission of an
application under the Scheme, it is evident that an officer intending to
avail the benefit of voluntary separation is required to submit the
application in the prescribed format as per Appendix A extracted
(supra), in triplicate, through the proper channel, and addressed to the
Competent Authority.
30. The record categorically established that the application was
submitted from the appellant's official email account, in the format
prescribed by the respondent, and was addressed to the Chairman and
Managing Director of the Respondent Corporation.
31. Furthermore, the application submitted by the appellant records
his acknowledgement that he has read, understood, and
unconditionally accepted the terms and conditions governing the
Scheme. Additionally, the annexure to Appendix A forming an
integral part of the application, contains all requisite particulars of the
Appellant, including his name, date of birth, and date of joining the
Corporation. It is further noted that the appellant completed Appendix
B, which is the nomination form, wherein he designated his wife as
his nominee, thereby demonstrating full compliance with the
procedural requirements of the mandated under the Scheme.
32. The mode and manner of submission conform to the stipulated
procedural requirements under the Scheme, thereby negating any
contention of irregularity or procedural infirmity.
33. In light of the foregoing discussion, it stands established that the
appellant had voluntarily submitted his application under the Golden
Gate Scheme in accordance with the prescribed procedural
framework. The said application, having been duly processed and
accepted by the Competent Authority, attained finality in law, and any
subsequent attempt at withdrawal is legally impermissible.
34. In view of the afore-stated findings, this Court finds no merit in
the present appeal.
35. Accordingly, the order of the learned Single Judge is upheld
and the present appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
36. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
AJAY DIGPAUL, J.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
FEBRUARY 28, 2025
AS
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
