Lathrang Born Buam vs Union Of India And 23 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 9238 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Lathrang Born Buam vs Union Of India And 23 Ors on 2 December, 2025

Author: M. Zothankhuma

Bench: Michael Zothankhuma

                                                                Page No.# 1/12

GAHC010127762025




                                                          undefined

                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                           Case No. : WA/197/2025

         LATHRANG BORN BUAM
         S/O LATE DR. P WELSON BUAM, DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, OFFICE
         OF NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., GUWAHATI REGIONAL OFFICE,
         STAR CITY COMPLEX, 5TH FLOOR, LACHIT NAGAR, G.S. ROAD,
         GUWAHATI 781008



         VERSUS

         UNION OF INDIA AND 23 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY ITS SECY. OF FINANCIAL SERVICE, MINISTRY OF
         FINANCE, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI 110001,
         INDIA.

         2:GENERAL INSURANCE PUBLIC SECTOR ASSOCIATION

          REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
          HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ORIENT HOUSE
          3RD FLOOR
          A 25/27
          ASAF ALI ROAD
          NEW DELHI.

         3:THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO .LTD. (NIACL)
          HAVING ITS REGISTERED AND HEAD OFFICE AT NEW INDIA ASSURANCE
         BUILDING
          87
          M.G. ROD
          FORT MUMBAI 400001 (REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM
         MANAGING DIRECTOR) E-MAIL- [email protected]. IN PH 022-
         22708219 ALSO AT 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR
          R.G. CITY CENTRE
          LSC
                                                       Page No.# 2/12

BLOCK B
LAWRENCE ROAD
DELHI 110035 (THROUGH ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER)

4:ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. (OICL)
AT BLOCK-4
 PLATE-A
 NBCC OFFICE COMPLEX
 KIDWAI NAGAR EAST
 NEW DELHI-110023
 (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR)

5:UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
 (UIICL)
 24
WHITES ROAD
 CHANNAI 600014 (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING
DIRECTOR0.

6:NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
 (NICL) PREMISES NO. 18-0374 PLOT NO. CBD 81
 NEW TOWN
 KOLKATA 700156 (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING
DIRECTOR)

7:GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
 (GIC RE)
 SURAKSHA
 170
 JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD CHURCHGATE
 MUMBAI 400020
 INDIA (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR)

8:AGRICULTURE INSURANCE CO. OF INDIA LTD. (AICIL)
 PLATE B AND C 5TH FLOOR
 BLOCK 1
 EAST KIDWAI NAGAR
 NEW DELHI 10023 (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING
DIRECTOR)

9:MS. KALAIVENI SUBBIAH

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. (UIICL)
24 WHITES ROAD
CHENNAI 60014 (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR)

10:MS. CHANDRA S. IYER
                                                      Page No.# 3/12

GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA (GIC RE)
SURAKSHA
170
JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD CHURCHGATE
MUMBAI 400020
INDIA (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR)

11:MS. VENUGOPAL NALINI

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. (NIACL)
HAVING ITS REGISTERED AND HEAD OFFICE AT NEW INDIA ASSURANCE
BUILDING 87
M.G. ROAD
FORT
MUMBAI 400001 (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR)

12:KHARBANDA LALIT KUMAR

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. (NIACL)
HAVING ITS REGISTERED AND HEAD OFFICE AT NEW INDIA ASSURANCE
BUILDING 87
M.G. ROAD
FORT
MUMBAI 400001 (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR)

13:MS. SAXENA ANJANA

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. (NIACL)
HAVING ITS REGISTERED AND HEAD OFFICE AT NEW INDIA ASSURANCE
BUILDING 87
M.G. ROAD
FORT
MUMBAI 400001 (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR)

14:SACHINDRADATTARA M SALVI

GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA (GIC RE) SURAKSHA 170
JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD CHURCHGATE
MUMBAI 400020 INDIA (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING
DIRECTOR)

15:SANJAY JOSHI

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. (UIICL0
24 WHITES ROAD
CHENNAI 600014 (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING
DIRECTOR)
                                                           Page No.# 4/12

16:SANDIP SHANKARRAO KARMAKAR

GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA (GIC RE)
SURAKSHA 170
JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD CHURCHGATE
MUMBAI 400020
INDIA (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR)

17:SANJAY LAILA

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. (NICL) PREMISES NO. 18-0374
PLOT NO CBC 81
NEW TOWN
KOLKATA 700156 (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING
DIRECTOR)

18:C.M. MANOHARAN
 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. (UIICL)
 24 WHITES ROAD
 CHENNAI 600014 (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING
DIRECTOR)

19:RAMAN K.V.

THE NEW INDIA ASURANCE CO. LTD. (NIACL) HAVING ITS REGISTERED
AND HEAD OFFICE AT NEW INDIA ASSURANCE BUILDING
87 M.G. ROAD
FORT MUMBAI 400001 (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING
DIRECTOR)

20:RAJIV KR. GUPTA

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. (OICL) AT BLOCK 4
PLATE A
NBCC OFFICE COMPLEX
KIDWAI NAGAR EAST
NEW DELHI 110023 (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING
DIRECTOR)

21:MS. VINITA JOSHI

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. (OICL) AT BLOCK 4
PLATE A NBCC OFFICE COMPLEX
KIDWAI NAGAR EAST
NEW DELHI 110023 (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING
DIRECTOR)

22:AMANDEEP SINGH GROVER
                                                                          Page No.# 5/12


             NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. (NICL)
             PREMIES NO. 18-0374 PLOT NO. CBD 81 NEW TOWN
             KOLKATA 700156 (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING
             DIRECTOR)

             23:S. SIVASANKAR

             NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. (NICL) PREMISES N. 18-0374 PLOT NO.
             CBD-81
             NEW TOW
             KOLKATA 700156 (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING
             DIRECTOR)

             24:MS. MINI GEORGE

             NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. (NICL) PREMISES NO. 18-0374 PLOT NO.
             CBD 81
             NEW TOWN
             KOLKATA 700156 (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING
             DIRECTOR

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. K N CHOUDHURY, MR. K AHMED,MS U SHARMA,MR. S P
SHARMA

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MD A RAHMAN (R-3),A W AMAN (R-2 TO 8),MR T R
SEN(R-2 TO 8),MR. T J MAHANTA




                                  BEFORE
                HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
                 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

                                        ORDER

02.12.2025 (M. Zothankhuma, J)

Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant assisted by Mr. S.P. Sharma, learned counsel. Also heard Mr. Zorawar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.2 to 8. Ms. K. Phukan, learned CGC appears for the respondent no.1.

Page No.# 6/12

2. The appellant, who is the writ petitioner has put to challenge the judgment and order dated 03.06.2025, by which the prayer of the petitioner for setting aside the impugned selection and promotion of the private respondents and having a review DPC, had been rejected by the learned Single Judge.

3. The appellant's case is that in terms of the Promotion Policy, as laid out in Clause 7.1, Clause 8.1, Clause 9.1.1, Clause 9.1.2, Clause 13.0.1.3 and Clause 13.1.1, the selection process for promotion of officers from Scale-VI to Scale-VII of the respondent no.3 requires the following parameters to be considered :-

merit and suitability, with due regard to seniority.

4. The appellant's further case is that the appellant has been superseded for promotion to Scale-VII on two occasions, i.e. in the Financial Year 2022-2023 and 2023-2024. It is the case of the appellant that in terms of the Promotion Policy for selection of candidates for promotion to Scale-VII, the parameters on which marks are to be given are as follows :

     Work Record      - 60 marks.

     Seniority        - 20 marks.

     Screening        - 10 marks.

     Interview        - 20 marks.

5. The appellant's counsel submits that when the appellant had secured 60 marks under the parameters 'Work Record', the appellant being the senior to all Page No.# 7/12

the private respondents except respondent nos.9 and 10, the other respondents, except for respondent nos.9 and 10, could not have been promoted over the appellant, by superceding him.

6. The appellant's counsel submits that a perusal of the pleadings goes to show that the respondent no.12, during his service career, had made a loss for the insurance company, while the appellant had made profits for the concerned company. As such, there was no ground for the respondents to have promoted the respondent no.12 over and above the appellant. In respect of the respondent no.9, the appellant's counsel submits that the said respondent no.9 was having a criminal case against him arising out of FIR No.0027 dated 17.01.2020 under Section 420/34 IPC. Thus the said respondent no.9 could not have been promoted over the appellant, who did not have any criminal case against him.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in paragraph-40 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no.3, the respondent no.3 has taken a stand that promotions at the level of Scale-VII is subjective in nature.

He accordingly submits that promotions should have been made on an objective assessment of various parameters and not on subjective satisfaction. He also submits that the records of the selection process had not been brought before the learned Single Judge, to enable the learned Single Judge to have looked into the manner, as to how marks had been provided to the candidates. He submits that unless the respondents produce the contemporaneous records to show the distribution of marks to the various candidates, the promotion based on Page No.# 8/12

subjective satisfaction of the respondents cannot be a valid procedure for promotion, as the same would be in violation of the Promotion Policy.

8. The learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 8, on the other hand submits that the promotion of officers from Scale-VI to Scale-VII is to be made on the basis of Clause 7.2 of the Promotion Policy, which provides that promotion to Scale-VII would solely be based on merit, though Seniority would be duly respected in terms of Clause 7.1. He submits that a reading of Clause 11.1 and Clause 11.5 would go to show that the marks to be provided under the parameter of Seniority has been given importance, only in respect of promotion from Scale-I to Scale-V and not for promotion beyond Scale-V, though seniority is to be respected when all other things are equal.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 8 further submits that the appellant has not challenged the Promotion Policy as on date and the appellant had also been promoted to Scale-VI from Scale-V, on the basis of the existing Promotion Policy. He also submits that the appellant has now brought out a new case in the writ appeal, which was never an issue before the learned Single Judge. In this respect, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 8 submits that the FIR No.0027 dated 17.01.2020 and the other documents mentioned in the additional affidavit filed by the appellant on 30.07.2025, cannot be permitted to be agitated in this writ appeal, as it is a settled principle of law that the Court cannot create any new case at the appellate stage for either of the parties, when no such pleadings had been made before the learned Single Judge. The learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 8 also submits that Closure Report has been filed in respect of FIR No.0027 dated 17.01.2020 Page No.# 9/12

by the Pandav Nagar Police Station, Delhi and there is a protest petition pending against the same in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Korkoduma Courts. The learned counsel also submits that as per the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, it is clear that the entire records had been produced and perused by the learned Single Judge.

10. The learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 8 submits that 47 persons were screened for the 16 vacant posts. However, the marks secured by

the appellant placed him in the 19th position, for which he could not be promoted. He also submits that the issue with regard to the respondent No. 12 apparently having incurred losses for the company does not give a true picture of the work performance of an employee in the business of an insurance company. In this respect, he submits as an example, that when Mr. 'A' makes a loss for the company @ Rs.10/- per annum and the next incumbent to the said post makes a loss @ Rs.5/-, then the same amounts to a vast improvement in the company finances. On the other hand, when Mr. 'A' makes a profit for the company @ Rs.10 per annum and the next incumbent makes a profit of only Rs. 5/- per annum, then that amounts to a loss of profit for the company. The other issues amongst others, to be considered, is also with respect to the place of posting of an employee. Thus, there are many factors required to be taken into consideration when considering various issues.

11. The learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 8 submits that the issue with regard to paragraph-40 of the respondent no.3's affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petition, wherein it has been stated that promotions at higher levels are subjective in nature, would have to be read in conjunction with the additional affidavit filed by the respondent no.3 in compliance with the order dated 18.03.2025 passed in WP(C) 2697/2024. The respondent no.3 was directed to Page No.# 10/12

file an additional affidavit to the query of the Court, as to the feasibility of production of the relevant records, indicating the objective materials on which the subjective satisfaction had allegedly been arrived at, while promoting the selected candidates.

12. Accordingly, in terms of the order dated 18.03.2025, an additional affidavit was filed by the respondent no.3, wherein it has been stated in paragraph-4 to 6, as follows :

"4. That it is respectfully submitted that Paragraph 13.1.1 of the Promotion Policy Indicates the guiding parameters for the Promotion Committee for selection of candidates for promotion. The Promotion Committee conducts an objective assessment based on these parameters in making the final determination. Notably, the Promotion Committee takes into consideration the performance appraisal records of the candidates from preceding 6 (Six) years as part of the promotion evaluation. The candidates are allotted marks under the following parameters:

1. Work Record (ACRs for the immediately preceding Six years).

2. External Assessment.

3. Seniority.

4. Interview.

5. Further, the Work Record (ACRs) constitute marks allotted towards the following parameters:

1. Performance.

2. Major Contribution.

3. Institution Building.

4. Health.

5. Integrity.

Page No.# 11/12

6. General Assessment.

7. Outstanding Work.

8. Fitness.

6. For each of the parameters stated above the Promotion Committee assigns marks, and candidates are awarded marks based on their performance against these parameters and the total marks obtained by each candidate are arrived at. The Candidates are then arranged in descending order of the total marks so obtained by them, and a merit list is accordingly prepared. From the top of the merit list, number of Candidates equal to the number of available vacancies, are selected for promotion. Therefore, as established above, there are specific objective parameters that enables the Promotion Committed to evaluate the candidates for promotions to the Scale-VII cadre. It is respectfully submitted that the query of this Hon'ble Court stand answered along with the fact that the Petitioner has duly been evaluated on the above said Parameters. Therefore, there is no question of any challenge by the Petitioner."

13. The learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 8 further submits that the tweaking of the Promotion Policy by lowering the qualifying service of 2 years to 1.5 years, thereafter to 1 year and subsequently to 1 ¾ th year, has not been put to challenge and the petitioner has also benefited from the same in the promotion exercise that had been held for filling up Scale-VII vacancies in 2023-2024, as he became eligible to be in the consideration zone. Thus, there was no favouritism or ulterior motive or biasness in changing the number of qualifying years of service required of candidates for promotion.

14. On considering the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties, we are of the view that the respondents should produce the marks secured by the candidates in the selection process conducted by the Promotion Committee.

Page No.# 12/12

15. On the prayer of the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 8, list the matter on 05.12.2025 as part heard.

                      JUDGE                      JUDGE




Comparing Assistant