Dismissed

J.C.Sahasrabudhe v. General Insurance Corpn. of India

Bombay HC7 Sept 2009WP/1230/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the denial of promotion during 1995-1999, alleging he was unduly assigned clerk duties instead of architectural work. The court found the petitioner's grievance regarding the 1996-1999 period unsupported by affidavits and lack of prior representation. For 1995, the petitioner was ineligible due to seniority rank. Additionally, the court noted the post was ex-cadre, negating p

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; rule discharged with no order as to costs.

J.C.Sahasrabudhe Vs General Insurance Corpn… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1230 OF 1998

¶5

Jayant C. Sahasrabudhe ...Petitioner

¶6

v/s

¶7

General Insurance Corporation of India
and others ...Respondents

¶8

Mr S.M. Dharap for Petitioner.

¶9

Mr V.Y. Sanglikar for Respondents.

¶10

CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND R.G. KETKAR JJ.

¶11

DATE : 7TH SEPTEMBER 2009.

¶12

¶13

P.C.:-

¶14

1]The petitioner, by this petition, makes a

¶15

grievance about denial of promotion to him. The

¶16

petitioner joined the service of the respondents in
the post of Administrative Officer (Architecture)

¶17

pursuant to the appointment order dated 12th June

¶18

1990. The petitioner was recruited in service

¶19

pursuant to an advertisement dated 9th September

¶20

1990. In the advertisement, it was stated that the
post of Administrative Officer (Architecture) is an
ex-cadre post. The appointment of th petitioner as
Administrative Officer (Arch.) was confirmed with
effect from 3rd July 1991. The petitioner has

¶21

admittedly been promoted to the post of Assistant

¶22

Manager with effect from 14th July 2000. The

¶23

grievance of the petitioner is that he should have
been considered for promotion in the years 1995,

¶24

1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999. According to the

¶25

respondents, the petitioner became, according to the
promotion policy of the respondents, entitled to be

¶26

considered for promotion in the year 1996.

¶27

¶28

Accordingly he was considered for promotion during
the year 1996 alongwith other eligible candidates
but the Promotion Committee did not find him fit for

¶29

promotion during the year 1996. The same thing
happened in the years 1997, 1998 and 1999. He was
again considered in the year 2000, he was found fit
and was promoted.

¶30

statement in the affidavit that he was not found fit

¶31

for promotion during those years by the Promotion

¶32

Committee cannot be accepted because the work of the
petitioner was the same during these years as also

¶33

the year 2000. The learned counsel appearing for
petitioner submits that the petitioner was wrongly
denied promotion from 1996 to 1999 and in 2000 he

¶34

was promoted only because this Court had granted
interim relief in this petition and directed the

¶35

respondents to keep one post of Assistant Manager

¶36

vacant. The learned counsel also submits that the
petitioner is an Architect and the respondents were

¶37

¶38

assigning him the work of Clerk and was not giving

¶39

the work of Architecture and therefore, denial of
the promotion to the petitioner in this situation

¶40

from the year 1996 to 1999 is illegal. So far as

¶41

the year 1995 is concerned, it is submitted that the
petitioner should have been considered because an
Officer belonging to the batch of the petitioner was

¶42

considering during the year 1995 and as per the

¶43

promotion policy, if an Officer from �A� batch is
considered, then all Officers from that batch have
to be considered. Now, so far as the grievance of

¶44

the petitioner seeking promotion during 1996 to 199
9 is concerned, in our opinion, the grievance cannot
be accepted because the statement on oath has been

¶45

made that the respondents had constituted Promotion

¶46

Committee to consider the cases of eligible

¶47

Officers, that Committee considered the case of the
petitioner and found him not fit for promotion

¶48

during those years. In the absence of any

¶49

allegation or material against anybody, in our

¶50

opinion, we will have to accept the statement on
oath made in the affidavit of the respondents. What

¶51

¶52

is further to be seen here is that though the

¶53

petitioner has made a grievance about his non-
promotion, there is no representation made by the
petitioner against his non-promotion during these
yeas for promotion. The petitioner has approached

¶54

the Court without approaching the respondents making

¶55

a grievance about denial of promotion during those
years. Therefore, in our opinion, no relief can

¶56

be granted to the petitioner so far as the years

¶57

1996 to 1999 are concerned. So far as the year 1995
is concerned, during that year, there were eight
vacancies as per the record. As per the promotion

¶58

policy, thrice the candidates of number of vacancies
are to be considered Therefore, 24 candidates were
considered. The placement of the petitioner in the

¶59

seniority list was below serial No.24, the

¶60

petitioner was at serial No.35 and therefore, the
petitioner was not eligible for consideration during

¶61

the year 1995. The learned counsel appearing for

¶62

petitioner submitted that one Officer who was of the

¶63

petitioner�s batch was considered for promotion in
the year 1995 and therefore, the petitioner should

¶64

¶65

have been considered, however, he fairly stated that
there is no submission made in this regard in the
petition. In our opinion, in the absence of
specific pleadings in this regard, the petitioner
cannot be heard to make such a grievance. It was
submitted that the petitioner was an Architect.
According to the petitioner, work was available with
respondents which he could have performed as per his
qualifications, but he was given the work of Clerk.
We find that though a grievance appears to have been
made from time to time in that regard, but the
petitioner was claiming that he should be permitted
to do work of Architecture privately. The
petitioner never offered to resign the post. In
fact, we find that in the advertisement, pursuant to
which he was appointed, it is clearly stated that it
is ex-cadre post. If the post is ex-cadre post, the
petitioner is not really entitled to any promotion.
It appears that the respondents took him as cadre

¶66

candidate and gave him promotion also. Taking
overall view of the matter, in our opinion, there is
no substance in the petition. Petition therefore

¶67

¶68

fails and is dismissed, rule is discharged with no
order as to costs.

¶69

Parties to act on the copy of this order

¶70

duly authenticated by the Associate / Private

¶71

Secretary of this Court.

¶72

Certified copy expedited.

¶73

( JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH )

¶74

( JUSTICE R.G. KETKAR )

J.C.Sahasrabudhe v. General Insurance Corpn. of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.C.Sahasrabudhe v. General Insurance Corpn. of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shree Mahyawanshi Samaj, Bombay Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. and Panchsheel Co-Op.Housing Soceity Ltd.

Shree Mahyawanshi Samaj, Bombay Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. and Lokhandwala Shelters India Pvt. Ltd.

Killick and Allied Companies Employees Union and Ors. Vs Killick Nixon Ltd. and Ors.

V.M. Ramulu Vs Pawan Hans Helicorters

Sharad W.Nerkar Vs Mah.Small Scale Ind.Dev. Corpn.Ltd.

Pandurang D. Dhumal Vs Railway Goods Clearing and Forwarding Estab.Labourboard for Gr. Bombay