1 Leave granted.
2 We have heard Mr Ravi Kumar, counsel for the appellant and Mr P P
Malhotra, senior counsel with Mr Mohit Paul, counsel for the respondent.
3 The appeal arises from a judgment dated 6 August 2018 of a Division Bench
at the Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
4 The writ petition1 by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution
pertains essentially to the grievance of the appellant of not being promoted
as a Manager. The appellant was claiming promotion from the post of Deputy
Manager in Scale III to the post of Manager in Scale IV. The relevant years
1 Service Bench No 10902 of 2016
are 2015 and 2016.
5 The grievance of the appellant in relation to 2014 was the subject matter of
an earlier proceeding. The High Court had dismissed the writ petition 2
instituted by the appellant on 6 October 2016 and the review petition3 was
dismissed on 17 January 2017. This led to the institution of proceedings
before this Court. Upon the grant of leave, the Special Leave Petitions 4
arising from the decision of the High Court were converted into Civil Appeal
Nos 5340-5341 of 2019.
6 By a judgment dated 10 July 2019, this Court held that the non-
communication of the Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APAR) for the
relevant years was contrary to the decisions of this Court in Dev Dutt vs
Union of India5 and Sukhdev Singh vs Union of India6. Hence, the
grievance of the appellant that the failure to communicate the entries for
2010-2011 and 2011-2012 was accepted by this Court. In that context, this
Court issued the following directions:
“15 ……
(i) Within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order, the respondent shall
communicate to the appellant the uncommunicated
2 Service Bench No 7631 of 2016 3 Review Application No103173 of 2016 4 SLP(C) Nos 33462-33463 of 2018 5 (2008) 8 SCC 725 6 (2013) 9 SCC 566 CA 2213/2022
entries in the APARs for the years which were taken into
account for the promotional exercise of 2014-15;
(ii) Within a period of two months from the date of receipt of
the above, it would be open to the appellant to submit his
objections and representation to the respondent;
(iii) The representation shall be considered within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of the
representation;
(iv) Thereafter, based on the result of the decision, the
competent authority shall take a decision on whether any
modification in the decision for promotion from Scale III to
Scale IV for 2014-15 in respect of the appellant is
warranted; and
(v) In order to ensure that this exercise is carried out fairly,
we direct that the competent authority shall ensure that
the representation that is submitted by the appellant is
placed before an authority at a sufficiently senior level to
obviate any bias or injustice.”
7 The judgment of this Court specifically notes that the appellant was since
promoted in 2018 to the post of Manager. However, since the claim of the
appellant related to his non-promotion for 2014, the grievance was directed
to be reconsidered on the basis of the representation that may be submitted
by the appellant to the un-communicated entries in the APARs.
8 During the course of the hearing, the Court has been apprised by Mr Ravi
Kumar, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that following the
decision of this Court dated 10 July 2019, the representation which was
submitted by the appellant was not accepted and this has resulted in the CA 2213/2022
institution of a fresh petition7 under Article 226 of the Constitution before the
Delhi High Court. The petition is pending. The Court has been apprised of the
fact that the website of the Delhi High Court indicates that the petition was
heard on 9 March 2021 and the next date of listing is 2 May 2022.
9 The present appeal relates to the non-promotion of the appellant for the
subsequent years, namely, 2015 and 2016. There is an element of overlap
between the non-promotion of the appellant for 2014 and the present case
which relates to 2015 and 2016. The High Court, in the course of its
impugned judgment adverted to the outcome of the proceedings for the
previous year in paragraph 24 of the judgment, which reads as follows:
“It is apt to mention that the action of the Insurance Company
in not promoting the petitioner on the post of Manager though
his juniors were promoted on 29.5.2014 has been challenged by
the petitioner in writ petition No.7631 (S/6) of 2016. A Division
Bench of this Court, vide judgment and order dated 6.10.2016,
dismissed the writ petition as the Division Bench did not find
the allegation of the petitioner to be true. Against the order
dated 6.10.2016, the petitioner has filed review application,
bearing No.103173 of 2016, which too was dismissed vide
judgment and order dated 17.1.2017. The petitioner has
admitted the fact that the aforesaid orders have not been
challenged by him before the higher forum. Thus, the judgment
and orders dated 6.10.2016 and 17.1.2017 have attained
finality. In these backgrounds, it is clear that the issue of non-
promotion of the petitioner on the post of Manager (Scale-IV)
has set at rest, therefore, the plea of the petitioner challenging
the issue of promotion for the year 2014-2015 is not
sustainable.”
7 Writ Petition Civil No 44 of 2021 CA 2213/2022
10 In the above extract, the Division Bench of the High Court observed that no
proceedings were adopted to challenge the judgment dated 6 October 2016
and the order in review dated 17 January 2017. This appears to have been
acknowledged by the appellant since the High Court recorded that the
“petitioner has admitted the fact that the aforesaid orders have not been
challenged by him before the higher forum”. This is evidently erroneous for
the reason that the judgment of the High Court for 2014, became the subject
matter of the decision of this Court dated 10 July 2019.
11 The fate of the grievance of the appellant for 2014 on the one hand and for
2015 and 2016 on the other hand cannot be considered in isolation since
there would be a degree of overlap. The ultimate view of the Delhi High
Court for 2014 may have some bearing on the outcome for 2015 and 2016.
Under the promotion policy of 2006, the parameters which are taken into
account for promotion from Scale III to Scale IV are the (i) written test; (ii)
work record; (iii) seniority; and (iv) interview. Since the APARs which reflect
the work record constitute a reckonable parameter in the overall exercise of
promotion, and since the grievance of the appellant pertaining to the year
2014, following the earlier decision of this Court is now pending before the
Delhi High Court, it would be appropriate that both the writ petitions which
were filed before the Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad as well as the petition before the Delhi High Court are considered
together and disposed of finally. CA 2213/2022
12 We are, therefore, inclined to set aside the impugned judgment of the High
Court dated 6 August 2018 and to direct:
(i) The transfer of the writ petition which was instituted before the
Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad to the Delhi
High Court; and
(ii) The writ petition so transferred to be heard and decided together with
the writ petition pending in the Delhi High Court.
13 We accordingly order and direct:
(i) The impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench at the
Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 6
August 2018 in Service Bench No 10902 of 2016 is set aside;
(ii) The writ petition which was instituted by the appellant as set out in (i)
above shall stand transferred to the Delhi High Court and shall be heard
and disposed of afresh together with Writ Petition Civil No 44 of 2021
instituted by the appellant which is pending before the Delhi High Court;
(iii) The setting aside of the judgment of the High Court dated 6 August
2018 shall not be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court on
the merits of the claim of the appellant pertaining to his non-promotion
for 2015 and 2016. All the rights and contentions of the parties are CA 2213/2022
expressly kept open; and
(iv) The Registrar (Judicial) at the Lucknow Bench of the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad shall take steps forthwith to ensure the transfer
of the records pertaining to Service Bench No 10902 of 2016 to the
Delhi High Court so that both the petitions can be heard and disposed of
by the same Bench expeditiously.
14 The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
15 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]
[Surya Kant]
[Bela M Trivedi]
New Delhi; March 22, 2022 CKB CA 2213/2022
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.17024/2019
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06-08-2018 in SB No.10902/2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench)
PANKAJ PRAKASH Appellant(s)
VERSUS
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. Respondent(s)
(With appln.(s) for IA No.75881/2019 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
Date : 22-03-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
For Appellant(s) Mr. Ravi Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Ronak Karanpuria, AOR
Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Gaurran, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. P.P. Malhotra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Vineet Maolhotra, Adv.
Mr. Mohit Paul, AOR
Mr. Vishal Gohri, Adv. CA 2213/2022
Mr. Shubhendu Kaushik, Adv.
Mr. Bikram Dwivedi, Adv.
Ms. Sonia Malhotra Kumar, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
1 Leave granted.
2 The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
3 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
A.R.-cum-P.S. Court Master
(Signed order is placed on the file)