G M LONE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NATIONAL Insurance Company Ltd., is engaged in the business of Insurance. It is set up under General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 (Act No. 57 of 1972). While establishing the Company some other companies dealing in Insurance business were amalgamated and absorbed in this company by the above Act. Petitioner appointed on 15 -11 -1969 by his erstwhile employer is deemed to be appointed by the above Company (respondent No. 2). Petitioner is an inspector while respondent No. 5 is also an inspector of the Company. Both claim to be categorised as inspector Grade -1. under the General Insurance Scheme of 1976 and promotion policy governing promotion of Inspector Grade -1 to the cadre of Assistant Administrative Officer (hereinafter called A. A. O.). Respondent No. 5. along with many others was promoted as A.A.O. vide order dated 6 -12 -1982 (Annexure -III) and later from the cadre of Assistant Administrative Officer to the cadre of Administrative Officer in 1986 vide order dated 25 -4 -1986. (Annexure -IV). Petitioner aggrieved of these orders of promotion of respondent No. 5 as A.A.O. and A. O. has challenged both the orders.

(2.) PETITIONER alleges that though he has made representation in December. 1982 and October, 1984 for redressal of his grievances, there has been no response from respondents. Respondent No. 5 was not eligible for consideration for the promotional post of A.A.O. from feeder category of Inspector Grade -I as enumerated in para 11 of the promotion policy. The respondent has not passed any of the examination prescribed in sub -clause -I/II of clause A of para 11 and is not even fulfilling the other conditions of prescribed years of service as Inspector Grade -1. Respondent No. 5 could not have been promoted to any post on the cadre of A. A. O. Petitioner was categorised as inspector Grade -I in the first round of categorisation as provided by explanation to Rule 11 of the promotion policy. His service prior to 1973 is to be accounted for and reckoned. Once so, he fulfills the eligibility of prescribed years of service as a requirement for promotion to the post of A. A. O. Notwithstanding petitioner's merit he was denied the promotion, whereas respondent No. 5 who did not even possess the eligibility was given promotion in an unfair and unreasonable manner. The condition of eligibility was not also kept in view. Respondent No. 5 's pro - motion is arbitrary. Petitioner 's merit, seniority and business performance was not given due weightage. Despite representations there was no response from the other side. The delay caused to challenge the order in question is referable to the representations and non -consideration thereof by the respondents. Petitioner cannot be denied the relief on the technical ground of delay. Petitioner prays for quashment of both circular/orders, so far as respondent No. 5 's promotion as A. A. O. and A. O. is concerned.

(3.) ON merits it is stated that the petitioner 's appointment in 1969 in National Insurance Co., a private organisation, before the establishment of National Insurance Co. by Nationalisation Act of 1972, cannot be regarded perse as the date of appointment as Inspector -Grade -1 of petitioner. It is only on categorisation as Inspector -Grade -1 in terms of promotion policy and Nationalisation Scheme for development staff 1976 that he can be called Inspector -Grade -1. Respondent No. 5 was categorised as Inspector Grade -1 in the initial categorisation. By the explanation to clause(a) of para 11 of the promotion policy, the eligibility of respondent No. 5 is to be reckoned from his date of appointment namely 1 -5 -1970. Under the clause respondent No. 5 was entitled to benefit of this period of service rendered prior to 1 -1 -1973. Respondent No. 5 has qualification and the prescribed years of service as Inspector Grade -1, to earn consideration for promotion to the post in the category of A. A. O. Petitioner's contention thereto is misplaced and not based on facts. The eligible Inspectors Grade -1 were considered for promotion to A. A. O. posts in accordance with the promotion policy in a fair reasonable manner. The promotions were ordered on the basis of suitability judged in the interview and on basis of performance recorded and other criteria laid down by the promotion policy. It was done by the Selection Committee after keeping in view the detailed criteria as laid down by the policy, inter -alia in various clauses of Rule 11 and other appreciable rules governing the subject of promotion of Inspector Grade -1 to the cadre of A. A. O. Respondent No. 5 earned further promotion as A. O. on being assessed for this post of Administrative Officer, in the matter of his seniority, qualification, performance, record and interview.