Bombay High Court Allows Promotion with Deemed Date in Service Law Case Due to Delayed Communication of Adverse CR and Subsequent Upgradation. Petitioner entitled to promotion from 15.05.2012 despite initial adverse grading which was later upgraded to 'Very Good'.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, an employee of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., joined service on 29.06.1999 as Assistant Engineer. For the year 2007-08, he received an adverse grading of 'Poor' in his confidential report, which was communicated to him only on 21.07.2012, four years later. He made representations and the Maharashtra State Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Commission directed reconsideration, leading to upgradation of his CR from 'Poor' to 'Very Good' by the Competent Authority. Meanwhile, his case for promotion to Deputy/Additional Executive Engineer was considered in a Selection Committee meeting on 15.05.2012, but he was not recommended due to the adverse CR. After upgradation, another Selection Committee on 17.06.2014 considered his case but denied him the deemed date of promotion w.e.f. 15.05.2012, relying on Administrative Circular No. 310 dated 5.08.2010. The petitioner challenged the denial and the circular. The court held that the delayed communication of the adverse CR and its subsequent upgradation entitled the petitioner to promotion from the date his juniors were promoted, i.e., 15.05.2012, and that the circular could not be applied to defeat his right. The petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to grant promotion with deemed date and consequential benefits.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Promotion - Deemed Date - Adverse CR - Upgradation - Petitioner's CR for 2007-08 was graded 'Poor' but communicated after four years on 21.07.2012. The grading was later upgraded to 'Very Good' on recommendation of SC/ST Commission. The Selection Committee initially denied promotion on 15.05.2012 due to the adverse CR. After upgradation, a subsequent committee on 17.06.2014 considered his case but denied deemed date relying on Circular No. 310 dated 5.08.2010. Held that the petitioner is entitled to deemed date of promotion w.e.f. 15.05.2012 as the adverse CR was not communicated in time and was later upgraded, and the Circular cannot defeat the right to promotion from the date of vacancy. (Paras 1-5)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to deemed date of promotion to the post of Deputy/Additional Executive Engineer w.e.f. 15.05.2012 despite the initial adverse CR grading which was later upgraded, and whether Administrative Circular No. 310 dated 5.08.2010 is valid.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant the petitioner deemed date of promotion to the post of Deputy/Additional Executive Engineer w.e.f. 15.05.2012 with all consequential benefits. The Administrative Circular No. 310 dated 5.08.2010 is quashed and set aside to the extent it denies deemed date of promotion in such circumstances.

Law Points

  • Deemed date of promotion
  • delayed communication of adverse confidential report
  • upgradation of CR
  • Administrative Circular No. 310 dated 5.08.2010
  • principle of retrospective promotion
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2023 LawText (BOM) (03) 89

Writ Petition No. 73 of 2020

2023-03-29

S.V. Gangapurwala, Acting C.J., Sandeep V. Marne, J.

2023:BHC-AS:9862-DB

Mr. Kishor D. Walanju for petitioner, Mrs. Anjali R. Shiledar Baxi for respondent no.1

Shri. Ashok Ratnapal Narwade

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. & Anr.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging denial of deemed date of promotion and validity of Administrative Circular No. 310 dated 5.08.2010.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner seeks deemed date of promotion to the post of Deputy/Additional Executive Engineer w.e.f. 15.05.2012 and quashing of Circular No. 310.

Filing Reason

Petitioner was denied promotion from the date his juniors were promoted due to an adverse CR which was later upgraded, and the respondents relied on Circular No. 310 to deny deemed date.

Previous Decisions

The Selection Committee on 15.05.2012 did not recommend promotion due to adverse CR. After upgradation, another committee on 17.06.2014 considered his case but denied deemed date relying on Circular No. 310.

Issues

Whether the petitioner is entitled to deemed date of promotion w.e.f. 15.05.2012 despite the initial adverse CR which was later upgraded? Whether Administrative Circular No. 310 dated 5.08.2010 is valid and can be applied to deny deemed date of promotion?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the adverse CR was communicated after four years and later upgraded, so he should be promoted from the date his juniors were promoted. Respondents argued that as per Circular No. 310, promotion cannot be granted with retrospective effect from a date prior to the upgradation of CR.

Ratio Decidendi

An employee cannot be denied promotion from the date of vacancy due to an adverse CR that was communicated belatedly and later upgraded. The principle of retrospective promotion applies to ensure that the employee is not prejudiced by administrative delays or errors in CR grading.

Judgment Excerpts

Petitioner seeks deemed date of promotion on the post of Deputy/Additional Executive Engineer w.e.f. 15.05.2012. The adverse grading was communicated to petitioner four years later on 21.07.2012. Competent Authority upgraded Petitioner’s C.R. for the year 2007-08 from ‘Poor’ to ‘Very Good’.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court challenging the denial of deemed date of promotion and the validity of Administrative Circular No. 310. The court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 29.03.2023.

Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Acquits Appellant in Murder Case Due to Lack of Evidence and Unreliable Witnesses. Conviction under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC and Arms Act set aside as prosecution failed to prove conspiracy and identity of assailants beyond reason...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Life Conviction for Rape of Minor Sister-in-law Under POCSO Act and IPC. Accused's repeated sexual assault on 17-year-old victim resulting in pregnancy proved beyond reasonable doubt by consistent testimony and medical evide...