Uttarakhand High Court
SPA/880/2018 on 22 July, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:6433-DB
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
22.07.2025 SPA/880/2018
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.
Per - Hon'ble Majoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Bhuvnesh Joshi, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. J.C. Belwal, Advocate for the respondent.
2. This intra-Court appeal is filed challenging the
final order dated 03.08.2018, passed by learned Single
Judge in WPSS No. 1288 of 2012. By the said order,
writ petition filed by respondent was decided in terms
of the judgment rendered in WPSS No. 513 of 2010
and the authorities were directed to consider the case
of respondent for notional promotion within ten weeks.
3. Appellant has challenged the said final order on
two grounds, firstly, that Rami Chand (respondent),
who filed the writ petition, retired from service on
31.05.2010, while promotion exercise was held on
22.09.2010, therefore, the ratio of the judgment
rendered in WPSS No. 513 of 2010 is not applicable as
in that case, writ petitioner was still in service and,
secondly, that respondent (Rami Chand) was offered
promotion to the post of Manager (Depot) on
27.07.2007, however, he refused to accept that offer of
promotion, therefore, as per policy applicable in Food
Corporation of India, he became disentitled to be
considered for promotion for a period of two years.
4. Mr. J.C. Belwal, learned counsel for the
respondent submits that as per policy applicable in
2025:UHC:6433-DB
Food Corporation of India, anyone who was within the
zone of consideration for promotion for the relevant
year but who superannuated by the time DPC is held,
are required to be considered for promotion; however,
such retired officials will not be given actual
promotion but they shall be promoted notionally.
5. In support of this contention, he relies upon
Office Memo dated 14.11.2014, issued by Ministry of
Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
(Department of Personnel and Training), Government
of India, which is on record as Annexure-1 to the
supplementary affidavit filed by petitioner before the
writ court.
6. Office Memo dated 14.11.2014 supports the
contention made on behalf of respondent and it
provides that names of retired officials have also to be
included in the panel for promotion, if such retired
officials were within the zone of consideration for
promotion during the relevant years.
7. Admittedly, respondent was eligible for
promotion during the relevant year, therefore, in terms
of Office Memo dated 14.11.2014, he has right to be
considered for notional promotion, even though he
retired from service.
8. Regarding second contention raised on behalf of
the appellant, Mr. J.C. Belwal, learned counsel submits
that in 2007 when his client was offered promotion, he
made a request to competent authority to cancel the
offer of promotion, as his wife had died in the same
2025:UHC:6433-DB
year and there was no one in the family to take care of
his children. However, his request to cancel the offer of
promotion was not considered but in similar
circumstances, request made by one Mr. Kailash Joshi
to cancel the promotion offered to him was accepted,
thus respondent was subjected to hostile
discrimination.
9. It is not in dispute that the wife of the respondent
died of cancer on 17.08.2006; therefore, he had
requested to post him as Manager (Depot) at Haldwani
and it it was not possible, then his promotion order be
kept in abeyance.
10. As per policy applicable in Food Corporation of
India, an employee who refuses to join on the
promoted post shall be debarred for promotion for a
period of two years. Since respondent was offered
promotion on 27.07.2007, therefore two years' period
for which he was debarred for promotion, came to an
end on 27.07.2009.
11. Although the judgment rendered in Writ Petition
(S/S) No. 513 of 2010 is distinguishable on facts as in
that case, suitability of writ petitioner was adjudged
and his name was recommended for promotion, much
before his retirement.
12. In the present case, Rami Chand (respondent)
had retired before the date when DPC was held,
however, in view of the policy applicable in Food
Corporation of India, even a retired employee is
entitled to be considered for promotion if he was
2025:UHC:6433-DB
within zone of consideration for the relevant year.
13. Thus, we are not inclined to interfere with the
direction issued by learned Single Judge to consider
the case of respondent for notional promotion.
However, such consideration shall be on merits,
uninfluenced by any observation made in the
impugned judgment.
14. The Special Appeal fails and is dismissed.
(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
22.07.2025
Mahinder/
MAHINDER SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08923c,
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4BABA43D
2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH
Date: 2025.07.23 17:01:16 +05'30'
