Dismissed

Udai Shanker Shukla (Since Deceased) v. Union of India through Member (Staff) and 5 Ors.

Bombay HC4 Nov 2025WP/1488/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Division Bench dismissed a writ petition where a deceased former DIG sought retrospective promotion parity with a junior promoted in IG grade. The court held notional seniority did not satisfy duty-discharge requirements and administrative sequence was not violated.

What the court decided

AI extract

Udai Shanker Shukla (Since Deceased) Vs Union… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

15 WP 1488-14.DOC

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1488 OF 2014 WITH

¶4

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 10 OF 2015 IN

¶5

LAXMI SUBHASH SONTAKKE

¶6

Digitally signed by LAXMI SUBHASH SONTAKKE Date: 2025.11.10 18:01:38 +0530

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 1488 OF 2014

¶8

Udai Shanker Shukla (Since Deceased) through legal heirs ...Petitioners Versus Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

¶9

Mr. Ajay Samant for Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Abhijeet Joshi for Respondent No.1 to 4.

¶11

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & AARTI SATHE, JJ.

¶12

DATE: 4^th NOVEMBER 2025

¶13

P.C.

¶14

The Petitioner who was working as a Group ‘A’ Officer on the post Deputy Inspector General (DIG) in Railway Protection Force, has filed this Petition initially praying for the following substantive reliefs:-

¶15

“(a) The Hon'ble Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to the Respondent and after examining the legality and validity of the Impugned orders No. E (O) III-2013/PM/46 and E (O) III-2013/PM/47 dated 02.08.2013 issued by the Deputy Secretary (E)/SF, Railway Board (being Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B") original issued by the Respondent No. 2 showing the original Petitioner below his juniors despite being senior to them be quashed and set aside;

Page 1 of 7

Laxmi

15 WP 1488-14.DOC

direct the Respondents to restore the seniority of the Petitioner for consideration in the next promotion of Inspector General;

¶21

(c) The Hon'ble Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to the Respondent and after examining the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 02.08.2013 direct the Respondents to consider all the representations within the period of fifteen days.

¶22

(d) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this present Writ Petition the Respondents be directed not to implement the impugned promotion/seniority orders No. E (O) III-2013/PM/46 and E (O) III-2013/PM/47 dated 02.08.2013 issued by the Deputy Secretary (E)/SF, Railway Board for the promotion to the rank of Inspector General in the coming DPC.

¶23

(e) pending the hearing and final disposal of this present Writ petition the Respondent be directed to retain the original seniority of the Petitioner as per seniority list dated 17.04.2014”

¶24

On 25^th July 2014, a Division Bench of this Court considering the grievance of the Petitioner, which was in relation to the seniority and a representation as made by the Petitioner in that regard being pending, passed the following order:-

¶25

“P.C.

¶26

Leave to amend in terms of the draft tendered in the court, taken on record and marked “X” for identification. Amendment to be carried out within one week from today.

¶27

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents states that the petitioner's representation regarding his seniority is under consideration and the decision will be taken in or about two weeks.

¶28

In the event any other person is granted seniority, the same will be subject to the orders passed in respect of the petitioner's seniority by the concerned authority and/or of any orders passed in this writ petition.

¶29

Stand over to 25th August, 2014 for admission.”

¶30

Pursuant to the Court’s direction, Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 decided the Petitioner’s representation. A decision in favour of the Petitioner was taken granting him placement in the “DIG” grade w.e.f. 15^th January 2009, on notional

Page 2 of 7

Laxmi

15 WP 1488-14.DOC

basis. The Petitioner contends that after being placed notionally in the “DIG” grade from 15^th January 2009, he completed five years of service in that grade as of 15^th January 2014. As per the relevant rules, five years’ service in the “DIG” grade is the eligibility requirement for promotion to the “IG” grade. The Petitioner therefore asserted that he had become eligible for consideration for promotion to the “IG” grade from 15^th January 2014. The Petitioner’s grievance is that, despite the notional promotion being granted, the consequential benefit of eligibility for promotion to “IG” grade was not acted upon. Hence, it is the Petitioner’s case that the Petitioner was constrained to approach this Court seeking appropriate directions. During the pendency of this Petition, on 9^th September 2014, the Petitioner was granted grade of “DIG” w.e.f. 15^th January 2009.

¶35

It appears from the record that Respondent No. 5, who according to the Petitioner was junior to him in the seniority list, was promoted to the post of “IG” on 12^th November 2014. It is the Petitioner’s case that at that point of time, the Petitioner had already completed five years of service in the “DIG” grade although reckoned notionally from 15^th January 2009, and was therefore the Petitioner was eligible to be considered for promotion to the “IG” grade. The Petitioner’s grievance, hence is that while his junior was promoted in the “IG” grade on 12^th November 2014, he was not considered, despite his eligibility and the notional conferment of the “DIG” grade w.e.f. from 15^th January 2009. It is not in dispute that all of the said benefits of seniority conferred upon the Petitioner were notional in nature, and that the Petitioner had not actually discharged duties in the category of “DIG” for the period of five years so as to claim automatic eligibility for promotion to the higher grade of “IG”. It appears that merely because a decision was taken on 9^th September 2014 to place the Petitioner in the “DIG” grade w.e.f. 15^th January 2009 on notional basis, the Petitioner came to be considered for promotion to the post of “IG”, and was accordingly granted promotion on 16^th January 2015. This promotion was accorded approximately two months after the promotion of Respondent No. 5 i.e. 12^th November 2014, who, in fact, actually

Page 3 of 7

Laxmi

15 WP 1488-14.DOC

served and discharged duties in the “DIG” post for five years prior to being promoted.

¶40

It is on such backdrop that the Petitioner has now sought amendment of the present Petition, praying that since he has been inducted in the “DIG” grade w.e.f. 15^th January 2009, a review DPC (Departmental Promotion Committee) be convened, and that he be considered for promotion to the “IG” grade not from 16^th January 2015, but retrospectively from 12^th November 2014 i.e. the date on which such promotion was granted to Respondent No. 5. The amended prayers as sought by the Petitioner are required to be noted and are reproduced as under:

¶41

““(a) The Hon'ble Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to the Respondent and after examining the legality and validity of the Impugned orders No. E (O) III-2013/PM/46 and E (O) III-2013/PM/47 dated 02.08.2013 issued by the Deputy Secretary (E)/SF, Railway Board (being Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B") original issued by the Respondent No. 2 showing the original Petitioner below his juniors despite being senior to them be quashed and set aside;

¶42

(aa) The Respondent be directed to follow and implement the procedure as directed by the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta, in its 2003 Judgment r/w that of Shri H. S. Grewal V/s Union of India (SCC).

¶43

(b) The Hon'ble Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to the Respondent and after examining the legality and validity of the impugned orders dated 02.08.2013 direct the Respondents to restore the seniority of the Petitioner for consideration in the next promotion of Inspector General;

¶44

(bb) The Respondent be directed to correct s the grading in the ACR of March 1999.

¶45

¶46

(d) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this present Writ Petition the Respondents be directed not to implement the

Page 4 of 7

Laxmi

15 WP 1488-14.DOC

impugned promotion/seniority orders No. E (O) III-2013/PM/46 and E (O) III-2013/PM/47 dated 02.08.2013 issued by the Deputy Secretary (E)/SF, Railway Board for the promotion to the rank of Inspector General in the coming DPC.

¶51

(e) pending the hearing and final disposal of this present Writ petition the Respondent be directed to retain the original seniority of the Petitioner as per seniority list dated 17.04.2014;

¶52

(ee) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present writ Petition, the Respondents be directed to convey a review DPC forthwith to consider the notional promotion of the original Petitioner to IG grade w.e.f. 15^th January 2024 in view of the existing vacancies now disclosed in November 2016 and January 2017.”

¶53

At the outset, we may observe that during the pendency of the Petition, the Petitioner expired on 27^th May 2018.

¶54

We have perused the memo of petition as also the reply affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Although the contention as urged by Mr. Samant, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, appears attractive at first blush that a review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) be convened so that the Petitioner’s eligibility for being considered for promotion to the “IG” grade w.e.f. 12th January 2014 can be assessed, or in other words, that there be a review of the earlier decision granting promotion to the Petitioner w.e.f. 16th January 2015, it becomes necessary to examine the basis of such submission.

¶55

Mr. Samant’s contention is on the basis of the communication date 15^th November 2016 issued by the Railway Board to the General Manager of South Eastern Railway, Kolkata and the second communication dated 18^th January 2017 issued in favour of General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai which according to Mr. Samant would avail to the benefits of the Petitioner. To appreciate Mr. Samant’s contention, it is necessary to note contents of the said communications dated 15^th November 2016 and 18^th January 2017.

¶56

8.1 The contents of communications dated 15^th November 2016 reads thus:-

Page 5 of 7

Laxmi

15 WP 1488-14.DOC

“Sanction of the Ministry of Railways is hereby accorded postfacto to the extension of currency of the workcharged SA Grade post of IG/RPF (PC 12730) in Security Department under D&G charges of Construction Organisation of SE Railway, last created for a period upto 30.6.2010 vide Board's letter No.2010E(GC)81(36) dt.12.3.2010, for the period from 1.7.2010 to 30.6.2017.”

¶61

8.2 The contents of communications dated 18^th January 2017 reads thus:-

¶62

“Sanction of the Ministry of Railways is hereby accorded, post facto, to the extension of currency of workcharged SAG post of IG/RPF(Postcode 12762) of Security Deptt., created upto 30.06.2011 vide Board's letter No. 2010E(GC)8-9(134) dt. 07.10.2010, for the period from 01.07.2011 upto 30.06.2017, chargeable to D&G provision of Construction Organization.”

¶63

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to accept the contentions as urged by Mr. Samant, for two principal reasons. Firstly, although the Petitioner was placed in the “DIG” grade w.e.f. 15^th January 2009 on a notional basis, the actual decision conferring such benefit was taken only on 9^th September 2014. Consequently, on that date, Respondent No. 5 had already been discharging duties in the post of “DIG”, had completed the requisite period of service, and was therefore eligible for promotion, which was duly granted to him in the “IG” grade on 12^th November 2014. In contrast, the Petitioner’s position was different. His placement in the “DIG” grade was purely notional and did not involve actual discharge of duties in that post for the qualifying period. Moreover, the decision to accord him the notional placement was taken only two months prior to the promotion of Respondent No. 5, i.e., on 9^th September 2014, and thus, his claim of parity with Respondent No. 5 being asserted by the Petitioner on that count cannot be sustained.

¶64

Secondly, the Petitioner’s claim for a further promotion to the “IG” grade was not a substantive or original prayer made in the Petition as initially filed. In our opinion, the sequel to the decision dated 9^th September 2014 whereby the Petitioner was placed in the “DIG” grade w.e.f. 15^th January 2009 on notional basis, necessarily required the issuance of a revised seniority list reflecting such

Page 6 of 7

Laxmi

15 WP 1488-14.DOC

placement. Only upon publication of such revised seniority list could the process of considering the Petitioner for promotion to the next higher grade, namely, the “IG” grade, could have logically undertaken, as a matter of normal administrative sequence. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this procedure was not undertaken. Instead, a decision came to be taken to grant promotion to the Petitioner to the post of “IG” on 16^th January 2015, which, as already noted, was approximately two months after the promotion of Respondent No. 5.

¶69

In our opinion, Mr. Samant’s contention referring to the communications dated 15^th November 2016 and 18^th January 2017, as noted above, does not assist the Petitioner. The effect of these communications was not to create any substantive post, but merely to mitigate revenue requirements related to the specified post and subject matter of the communications. Such communications cannot be construed as having the effect of creating a specific post when none existed at the relevant time after Respondent No.5 was granted, so as to equate the Petitioner’s position with that of Respondent No. 5, who was granted promotion to the “IG” grade on 12^th November 2014.

¶70

For the reasons stated above, we do not find any infirmity in the actions of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, including the subsequent decision to grant the Petitioner promotion to the “IG” grade w.e.f 16^th January 2015. We are thus not inclined to grant any relief to the Petitioner. The Petition is accordingly rejected. No costs.

¶71

In view of disposal of the present Petition, nothing survives in the notice of motion and the same is accordingly disposed of.

¶72

(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)

¶73

Page 7 of 7

¶74

Laxmi

Udai Shanker Shukla (Since Deceased) v. Union of India through Member (Staff) and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Udai Shanker Shukla (Since Deceased) v. Union of India through Member (Staff) and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax 4 vs Majestic Infracon Pvt. Ltd.

Suryoday Co-Opeerative Housing Society vs Chetan Samajik Pratishtahan and Ors.

Banu Abdul Rehman Qureshi vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (Mhada)

Shridhar Ramdas Mahadik vs Manager/Director, Bombay Development Department of Chawls and 2 Ors.

Anant Namdev Parab vs M.C.G.M. Thrugh Asst. Commissioner

Aurosis Enterprises vs The Union of India