Dismissed

Union of India v. Ms. Sushama v Dabak and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Jul 2014WP/1243/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the petition challenging the CAT order which granted promotion to the respondent based on eligibility from 2008, ensuring she received dues from that date despite procedural delays.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed. Respondent No.1's promotion order was directed to be modified to treat her appointment as of 29-05-2008 with effect from that date for retirement dues.

Union of India Vs Ms. Sushama v. Dabak and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp1243-13

¶2

sas

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1243 OF 2013

¶6

Union of India through the Comptroller and Auditor General of India

¶7

..Petitioner.

¶8

V/s.

¶9

Ms. Sushama V. Dabak & Ors.

¶10

..Respondents.

¶11

Mr. Vinod B. Joshi with Ms. Lata Patne for the petitioner.

¶12

Ms. Sushma V. Dabak - respondent No.1 in person.

¶13

CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR AND A.K. MENON, JJ.

¶14

DATED : 7TH JULY, 2014

¶15

P.C. :-

¶16

We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). Respondent No.1 was not considered for promotion to the post of Principal Accountant General (PAG). The requirement for being considered for promotion was a grading in the confidential report of the assessed person as 'very good' for a period of five years. During the relevant period, respondent No.1 was assessed as 'very good' to start with and for a considerable period of time thereafter. For a short duration the

¶17

1/3

¶18

wp1243-13

¶19

grade was brought down to 'good'. Admittedly, the petitioner was not informed that her grade had been reduced from 'very good' to 'good'.

¶20

Respondent No.1 therefore, challenged her refusal to be considered for promotion by filing an O.A. before the CAT. The case of respondent No.1 was thereafter reviewed. Upon review, the grade of respondent No.1 was restored to 'very good' on 30^th July, 2009. Accordingly, respondent No.1 was promoted on the said basis. Respondent No.1 retired on 30^th November, 2013.

¶21

The only question is, whether for the purpose of her retirement dues and benefits, the respondent No.1 ought to be considered as having been appointed to the promotional post on 26^th May, 2008 when she ought to have been considered for promotion or from 31^st July, 2009 when she was finally promoted.

¶22

By the impugned order, the CAT has rightly come to the conclusion that respondent No.1's case should be considered as on the date of the first DPC namely, 26^th May, 2008 when she was wrongly not considered for the promotion. Further all that the order does is to direct the petitioner to consider her case for the purpose of 2008 and if found fit to be promoted to the said post with effect from 29^th May, 2008.

¶23

2/3

¶24

wp1243-13

¶25

The impugned order warrants no interference. In fact, in

¶26

our opinion, the CAT has come to a correct conclusion. Any other view would have been unfair to respondent No.1 despite the fact that she had fulfilled all the requirements for being considered for promotion as on the date of the first DPC.

¶27

The petition is therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶28

The impugned order shall be complied within eight weeks

¶29

from today.

¶30

3/3

Union of India v. Ms. Sushama v Dabak and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Ms. Sushama v Dabak and Ors.

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

Reshmiben Shantilal Shah Vs Chief Officer Mumbai Building Repair and Reconstruction Board and Ors.

Chipping and Painting Employers Association Pvt. Ltd. Vs Shrinivas Ramchandra Kulkarni and 2 Ors.

Jayesh Narain Bajaj and Vinita Narain Bajaj Vs Rammurti L. Goyal and 2 Ors.

M/S.Shahade Athavle Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Authorised Officer and 4 Ors.

Vijay Kashyap Vs the Board of Directors of State Bank of India and Others

Surajit Chandra Baruah Vs Board of Directors of State Bank of India