AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA Vs. MEENA DAVID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner [respondent herein] filed a writ petition seeking promotion to the post of Senior Manager (Operations) (E-4 level) with effect from 22.05.2009, which she asserted, was her entitlement on the basis of Exhibit P5. The respondent [appellant herein] contested the matter on the ground that after lateral movement, which the petitioner admittedly opted for, from the Operations Department to the Security Directorate, there could be no promotions sought for in the parent cadre. The learned Single Judge, however, after looking at the terms of lateral movement, as is evident from Exhibit R(a), found that the petitioner was entitled to seek such a prayer and allowed the writ petition. The appeal is filed by the Airports Authority of India against such directions issued by the learned Single Judge.

(2.) Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant Sri.V.Santharam contended that the policy of lateral movement specifically indicated that after lateral movement into another department and permanent absorption therein there could be no promotion claimed in the parent department. The respondent/writ petitioner opted for lateral movement, which was allowed on 22.04.2010 and she joined in the Security Directorate having moved from the Operations Department on 10.05.2010. She was permanently absorbed in the Security Directorate, by order dated 29.06.2011. There could be no promotion claimed in the parent cadre after such absorption in the Security Directorate, upon which the lien retained in the parent cadre of Operations, stands terminated. It is also pointed out that the entire claim was based on the alleged promotion granted to one Suresh Raj Kumar, who has not been granted such a promotion. In fact, there was a re-structuring in the parent department, which did not enure to the benefit of Suresh Raj Kumar. It is also pointed out that there is no comparison between the case of the petitioner and Suresh Raj Kumar especially since even before lateral movement he was senior to the petitioner. After the lateral movement was effected, Suresh Raj Kumar was placed at a senior position, since the seniority in the new department would depend upon the service in the earlier department. There are also other persons senior to the petitioner in the Security Directorate, which maintains all India cadre, and none of these persons including Suresh Raj Kumar have been impleaded in the writ petition.

(3.) Sri.K.J.Saji Isaac, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner would, however, point out the orders by which Suresh Raj Kumar was granted notional promotion on a restructuring carried out in 2013 after the said person had changed the department on lateral movement. It is only that benefit the petitioner also claims, which benefit was partially granted to the petitioner as per Exhibit P1. Exhibit P5, however, excluded her from consideration for reason of she being not available in the cadre at the time when Exhibit P5 was issued. It is pointed out that Exhibit P5 by a Review DPC considered the adjustment of the various employees in the Operations Department based on a Review DPC applicable to the year 2009; when the petitioner was continuing in the parent department itself.