IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2008 / 26TH POUSHA 1929 WA.No. 116 of 2008 -------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.33781/2006 Dated 23/10/2007 ................................ APPELLANT: RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 --------------------------------------------------- 1. THE CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, ORIENTAL HOUSE, P.B.NO.7037, A/25/27, ASAF ALI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 002. 2. THE CHIEF ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, AND PROMOTING AUTHORITY, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, ORIENTAL HOUSE, P.B.NO.7037, A/25/27, ASAF ALI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 002. 3. THE CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, METRO PALACE, OPPOSITE NORTH RAILWAY STATION, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 4 TO 6 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. C.A.LATHA KUMARI, W/O. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 50, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER SCALE-I, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVALLA. 2. SUNNY JOSEPH, ASSISTANT MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, DIVISIONAL OFFICE-2, KANJIKUZHY, KOTTAYAM. 3. SHEELA DEVI, ASSISTANT MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, BRANCH OFFICE, ALLEPPEY. W.A NO. 116/2008 4. R.ASHOK KUMAR, ASSISTANT MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, DIVISIONAL OFFICE-2, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI. S. SREEKUMAR ADV. SRI. SAJI ISSAC THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.Balakrishnan Nair & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. ======================== W.A.No.116 of 2008 ======================== Dated this the 16 th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. Respondents 1 to 3 in the writ petition are the appellants. The first respondent herein is the writ petitioner. She approached this Court feeling aggrieved by the omission of the respondents to promote her to the post of Assistant Manager along with the fourth respondent and other juniors in the feeder category. The brief facts of the case are the following: 2. The post of Administrative Officer is the feeder category post for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager under the appellants. Three years service in the feeder category is an obligatory qualification for promotion to that post. When promotion to the post of Administrative Officer was ordered in March, 2000, her claim was overlooked. She filed a review application. The review application was allowed finding that her claim was wrongly overlooked and by Ext.P1 order dated 11.5.2000, she was promoted as Administrative Officer. Pursuant to the said order, she joined duty on 29.5.2000. In the said order, it was specifically stated that her seniority in the promoted cadre of Administrative Officer will be reckoned from the date of publication of the ranking list of the main exercise of promotion, i.e., 3rd/6th March, 2000. As WA 116/08 -: 2 :- mentioned earlier, she was considered along with the others for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager and the list of selected officers for promotion to that post was published as per Ext.P5 dated 28.9.2006. She was not included in that list whereas her juniors found a place. She represented by filing Ext.P6. The said representation was rejected by Ext.P6(a). She filed another representation Ext.P8. Thereafter, she approached this Court filing W.P.(C) No.23781 of 2006 seeking promotion to the post of Assistant Manager with effect from the date of Ext.P5. 3. The petitioner contended that she was in every respect qualified for promotion. But she was, without any justification, superseded and her juniors were promoted. The respondents resisted the writ petition contending that the promotion exercise was undertaken as per the relevant promotion policy and the petitioner was ineligible for promotion. Pursuant to the direction of this Court an additional statement was filed. From the additional statement, it was evident that the petitioner happened to be superseded by her juniors because she has been given marks for service only for four years whereas her juniors were granted the benefit of five years service. The reason advanced was that her juniors joined service in the feeder category post before 31.3.2000 whereas the petitioner joined pursuant to Ext.P1 only on 29.5.2000. So, the juniors who joined earlier by a few weeks had the benefit of having one more year's service reckoned for the purpose of getting the marks under the head "seniority". In view of the provisions in Ext.P1 order, she is WA 116/08 -: 3 :- entitled to reckon her seniority with effect from 3rd/6th March, 2000 and therefore, the benefit of service rendered by her cannot be denied to her. But the official respondents contended that the promotion policy permits only actual physical service rendered by the candidate and not notional service. But the said contention was overruled by the learned single Judge and the writ petition was allowed. Hence, this appeal. 4. The learned senior counsel Sri.Nandakumara Menon appearing for the appellants brought to our notice paragraphs 6 (1) and 11 of the promotion policy. They are quoted in the additional statement filed by the third appellant before this Court. The said paragraphs read as follows: "Para 6(1) To be considered for promotion, an officer should have completed in the existing cadre, minimum 3 full years from the date of selection to the cadre as on 31st March immediately preceding the year in which the promotions are considered". "Para 11 Promotion shall take effect only after the officer takes charge of the post in the promoted cadre at the place of posting. However, the date of taking charge of the post shall not affect the seniority in the promoted cadre but this may be reckoned from the date of selection, provided such date of taking charge is not later than the out off date, stated in para 6(1)." The learned senior counsel submitted that those provisions will stand in the way of the petitioner getting the benefit of notional WA 116/08 -: 4 :- service. Her service can be reckoned only from the date she actually joined the promoted post on 29.5.2000. On going through the above provisions, we find it difficult to accept the contentions of the learned senior counsel. If the appointment order gives joining time and the candidate does not join within the stipulated time limit, then only, normally there will be lose of seniority. In this case, the appellants do not have a case that the petitioner did not join in time. The petitioner joined immediately on receipt of the promotion order. She was denied promotion to the feeder category earlier only, owing to default of the appellants. She is entitled to the benefits she would have got had she been promoted in time. The view expressed by the learned single Judge in this regard is perfectly legal and valid. It advances justice also. 5. Therefore, we are of the view that no grounds have been made out warranting interference with the judgment of the learned single Judge. We agree with the reasons and conclusions of the learned Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and it is dismissed. K.Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 16/1