IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2009 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 OP.No. 8052 of 2000(H) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- ANTONY JOB, HGA (PROGRAMMER), L.I.C. OF INDIA, MUNDAKKAYAM BRANCH. BY ADVS. MR.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY, MR.S.SANTOSH KUMAR (PERUNAD), MR.DEEPAK THOMAS, SMT.C.T.SUJA. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, YOGAKSHEMA, JEEVAN BEEMA MARG, P.B. NO.19953, MUMBAI – 400 021. 2. SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, L.I.C. OF INDIA, P.B. NO.609, C.M.S. COLLEGE ROAD, KOTTAYAM – 686 001. 3. K.R. JINUKUTTAN, HGA (PROGRAMMER), P & GS UNIT, L.I.C. OF INDIA, C.M.S. COLLEGE ROAD, KOTTAYAM – 686 001. 4. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI. R1 & R2 BY MR.S.EASWARAN, S.C, L.I.C, THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO.8052/2000-H: ORDER ON C.M.P. NO. 13371/2000 IN O.P. NO. 8052/2000-H CLOSED 03/12/2009. SD/- S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD. 20/01/1999 ISSUED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 54/1998-99 DTD. 31/03/1999 ISSUED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 03/04/1999 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.2. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 10/01/2000 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.2. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 27/01/2000 ISSUED BY THE R.2. TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT: EXT.R2.A: COPY OF THE LETTER REF.SZ/R/MPP DATED 12/01/1999 ISSUED BY THE ZONAL MANAGER OF THE RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 8052 of 2000 ================== Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner entered service of the Life Insurance Corporation of India as Assistant on 23.9.1992. On 21.8.1995 he was posted as Micro Processor Operator in the P&GS (Pension & Group Scheme) Department. According to the petitioner, the P&GS Department is a separate and independent department. The next higher post to which the petitioner could aspire for is the post of Higher Grade Assistant (Programmer). Promotion to that post on selection is after a test and interview. In January, 1999, the petitioner underwent the selection process and he was included as the first person in the contingency list. According to the petitioner, the petitioner should have been promoted to the next arising vacancy of HGA (Programmer). By Ext.P1, a new vacancy in that post was notified in P&GS unit on 20.1.1999. But instead of promoting the petitioner, by Ext.P2, the 3rd respondent, who was an existing HGA (Programmer) working in another unit was transferred and posted in that vacancy. The petitioner objected to the same by filing Ext.P3 representation. While that representation was pending, the petitioner was promoted as HGA (Programmer) and posted at Mundakkayam Branch on 30.12.1999, pursuant to which, the petitioner joined duty on 3.1.2000. The o.p.8052/2000 2 petitioner again filed Ext.P4 representation claiming promotion with effect from the date when the 3rd respondent was transferred to the post notified by Ext.P1, which was rejected by Ext.P5, stating that the petitioner was offered promotion at right time as and when a suitable vacancy arose. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P2 and P5 on the ground that the vacancy which arose pursuant to Ext.P1 could not have been filled up by transfer in so far as, as is evident from Ext.P1, that is a post which should have been filled up by promotion. The petitioner, therefore, seeks promotion to the said post with effect from the date when the 3rd respondent was transferred to that post. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, wherein it is stated that even though P&GS department is a separate accounting department, for the purpose of deciding the cadre strength and postings, the same is treated as part of the divisional office which includes the office, from where the 3rd respondent was transferred and posted. Therefore, according to them, there is nothing wrong in transferring the 3rd respondent to fill up the vacancy which arose in P&GS department, since for the purpose of cadre strength and postings both departments constitute one unit. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. The petitioner could not satisfy me with any material that for the purpose cadre strength and postings, the P&GS department is a o.p.8052/2000 3 separate unit, independent from the unit the 3rd respondent was working as HGA (programmer). He could not refer to any rules which state that P&GS unit is separate and watertight unit to which the persons from other departments could not be transferred. If both units form part of the divisional office, I do not think that the petitioner can be aggrieved by the 3rd respondent being transferred from other unit to the P&GS unit in so far as he is already a HGA (Programmer) in service. Therefore, there is no merit in the contentions of the petitioner and accordingly, the original petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 8052 of 2000-H ================== J U D G M E N T 3rd December, 2009