1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.2379 OF 2008 Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. ...Petitioners. Vs. Smt.Savita Tanaji Motling & Ors. ...Respondents. .... Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate with Mr. A.J. Bhor i/b. Mr. S.H. Ujjainwala for the Petitioners. Mr. M.S. Oberoi i/b. Mrs. N.V. Sanglikar for Respondent No.1. Mr. R.D. Bhat for Respondent No.2. ..... CORAM :DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. June 27, 2008. P.C.: Rule, by consent of Counsel returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents waive service. By consent of Counsel and at their request taken up for hearing and final disposal. This petition has been heard together with the companion Writ Petition, viz. W.P. 2373 of 2008. The issue which has arisen for the consideration of the Court is whether the qualifications and experience prescribed for appointment to the promotional post of 2 Matron in the Municipal Hospitals of Greater Mumbai under the Regulations framed by the Municipal Corporation (under Resolution No.209 of 2nd February 1984) could be deviated from by an administrative circular. This Court has held that the resolution which statutorily held the field could not be amended or modified by an administrative circular. The question of law which has been urged in these proceedings is the same and Learned Counsel for the parties agreed that the reasons already elaborated in the judgment of the companion Writ Petition would apply to this case as well. 2. In the companion petition, the Industrial Court had directed the Municipal Corporation to consider the case of the employee concerned for promotion. However, in the present case the Industrial Court has inter alia issued the following direction in its impugned judgment dated 30th January 2008: “It is hereby declared that the complainant is deemed to have been promoted to the post of matron with effect from May 1998. The complainant is held to be entitled to pay the other monetary benefits of the post of matron from the date of retirement of Smt. V.V. Gawde i.e. with effect from 3 2.1.2004 till the date of retirement of the complainant.” 3. It is a settled principle of law that where the Court finds that an employee has been wrongly denied promotion, the appropriate order to pass is to the effect that the employer should consider the case of the employee for promotion in accordance with law. In the present case the Industrial Court was manifestly in error in directing that the First Respondent should be deemed to have been promoted with effect from May 1998 with consequential monetary benefits, which would be granted from 2nd January 2004 till her retirement. In view of the settled position of law, the appropriate order which the Industrial Court ought to have passed in the present case was to direct the Municipal Corporation to consider the case of the First Respondent for promotion in accordance with law. The Court has been informed that in the meantime, the First Respondent has retired from service. In the event that the Municipal Corporation considers the request of the First Respondent for promotion and decides to 4 promote the First Respondent to the post of Matron, she would be entitled to such benefits as are permissible in law. Clause (3) of the operative order passed by the Industrial Court which has been reproduced in the earlier part of this judgment, shall accordingly stand set aside and is substituted in terms of the aforesaid directions. The Corporation, it is needless to add, shall consider all the relevant aspects pertaining to the service record of the First Respondent, including the date from which she would be entitled to promotion. As has been clarified in the judgment in the companion case, it is clarified that this shall not preclude the Municipal Corporation from revising the qualifications as considered appropriate, in accordance with law. The petition shall accordingly stand disposed of. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. .....