ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY Vs. DEEPTI NIGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS review petition is directed against the order dated 24.3.2014. Shri Ankur Mody, learned counsel for the review petitioners submits that the whole order passed in WP No. 6920/2013 dated 24.3.2014 is based on Clause 11 (b) of the policy (para 8 of the order). It is contended that the said policy, which is relied by the writ court, has no application in the matter. Said policy is placed on record as Annexure P/9 (page 33). Shri Mody placed reliance on a seal appended to the said document, which bears the name of United India Insurance Company. He submits that the said policy, Annexure P/9, is issued by the United India Insurance and has no applicability on the petitioner organization, namely, Oriental Insurance Company. He further submits that since the whole order is based on a wrong policy, which has no application, the order needs to be reviewed. He fairly submits that the present review petitioners did not bring it to the notice of the writ court that the said policy, Annexure P/9, has no application in the matter. In addition, he relied on the policy, Annexure A/3 (page 47), which deals with "Job Rotation, Transfer and Mobility for Supervisory, Clerical and Subordinate Staff". By placing reliance on clause 3.6 of Annexure A/3, it is contended that the respondent No.1 -employee does not have any preferential right of posting on promotion on the basis of her position in merits. He relied on the minutes of the meeting, Annexure A/5, to submit that the said rotation policy (Annexure A/3) was approved by the competent authority/board. Lastly, it is submitted that the policy Annexure P/9 is issued by GIPSA, which does not have administrative control over the petitioner - employer nor its guidelines have any binding or statutory force. Reliance is placed on document dated 28.1.2011 (Annexure A/6).

(2.) PRAYER is opposed by Shri Anil Sharma and Shri Amit Lahoti, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. They submit that the petitioners have specifically pleaded in their writ petition that the governing provision is Annexure P/9. The respondents in their return (in the writ petition) merely stated that it is a matter of record. In absence of any specific denial to aforesaid aspect, it shall be treated as admitted. Reliance is placed on the "preamble", "applicability" and "definition" mentioned in Annexure P/9. This includes the names of public sector companies, on which policy is said to be applicable. In addition, it is submitted that the policy, Annexure R/1(1) is very much issued by present petitioner/ employer. By taking this Court to 'job rotation and transfer policy for supervisory, clerical and subordinate staff' (page 14 with the return), it is contended that clause 11(b) gives the similar preferential right based on merit to the employees.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.