Holding

The Zonal Promotion Committee's resolution that the appellant's case could not be reopened is ineffective, and the corporation must consider his promotion as of the date his junior was promoted.

Summary

The appellant, a Godown‑Keeper of the Food Corporation of India, was transferred from the Northern to the Eastern region at his request and later retransferred back with an assurance that his original seniority would be restored. Subsequent promotions of his juniors led him to seek inclusion in the 1970 promotion panel, but the Zonal Promotion Committee first deferred his case due to missing confidential reports and later, after locating the reports, passed a resolution that his case could not be reopened. The Supreme Court held that such a resolution is ineffective because the Committee had never actually considered his suitability for promotion; reopening a case requires a prior consideration and decision. Consequently, the Court directed the corporation to consider the appellant for promotion as of the date his immediate junior was promoted, granting any consequential benefits but no salary arrears. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the 1962 Government circular treating voluntarily transferred officers as fresh entrants for seniority applies to the appellant.
Whether the Zonal Promotion Committee's resolution that the appellant's case could not be reopened is legally effective.
Whether the corporation is estopped by its earlier assurance to restore the appellant's seniority.
Whether the appellant is entitled to be considered for inclusion in the 1970 promotion panel and to receive promotion and consequential benefits.

Subjects

senioritytransferpromotiondepartmental promotion committeeestoppelFood Corporation of IndiacircularArticle 226administrative law

Judgment

\

GUNENDRA PRASAD SEN GUPtA
A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

May, 3 1983
B r
(S. MURTAZA FAZAL Au AND E. S. VENKATARAMIAH JJ.]

Service Jurisprdence-Seniority and Promotion to higher post-Assurance
given to the employee that his seniority in the post" to which he was initially
appointed o'n his retransf-er would be considered-Depanmental Pro111otion Con1-
mittee first rejecting to consider the case for e111panelli11g_for pron1otio11 for want
ofpersonal records and later· when available refuses to reopen the case-legality
of the refusal Estoppel by conduct, applicability of.

The appellant was working as a Godown-Keeper in the northern region
of the Food Corporation of Delhi. He was transferred to the eastern region
at his own request on March 1, 1961. Jn August 1962, the U11ion of India
D issued a circular to the effect that an officer who was transferred from one
region to another at his own request should be treated as a fresh entrant in the
·cadre to which he belonged in the latter region for the purpose of Seniority
and thus th"ercby such an officer will forfeit his pa.st services. In the· Seniority ...
List of 1969, the appellant's name was shown at S. No 261 but in the seniority
list of 1972 his name was shown against St. No. 266 and as a result fout Of his
juniors w~re promoted. The appellant's several representations against the
E said promotions having failed, he filed a wr~t petition in the Calcutta High
Court praying for a mandainus directing the respondents either to forbear
from giving effect to the promotions or to t~ansfer him back to Northern region
restoring his seniority. As per the High Court's orders, the Joint P9rsonnel
Manager of the Corporation wrote to the Zonal Manager (E) at 'Calcutta
assuring that the seniority position of appellant in the Northern region prior to
his tra:O.sfer to the Eastern region would be restored to him. After his retrans-
F fer to the Northern region, the appellant found that s9me of his juniors had
already been proffioted. On his representation, the Departmental Promotion
Committee en.1panelled him in the 1976 panel and refused to empanel him from
1970 on the ground of non-availability of service ·records. But whcri they were
traced and produced, the Departmental Promotion Comn1ittee refused to
empanel his name in the 1970 List with a cryptic resolution to the effect that
G "on the basis of records of his service, his case cannot be reopened". His
representations against the said resolution having failed, the appellant filed a
writ petition in the Delhi High Court which was dismissed in /iniine. Hence
the appeal by Special Leave.

Allowing the appeal, the Court
H
· HELD : 1:1 th~ resolution of the Zonal Committee passed in May
1979 stating that the case of the appellant could not be reopened has to be
o.P. SEN GUPTA v. UNION CVenkataramiah J.) 7.
treateU as non-est and ineffective one in the eye of Jaw. The Zonal Promotion
Committee had not considered the case of the appellant for the purpose of A
including him in the 1970 panel. The re-opening of a case arises only when ii
has been once considered and a decision is taken thereon. [10 G-H, 11 ·A-B]

1:2 ·The resolution passed by the Zonal Promotion Committee n1eans
that it was not willing to reopen the case of the appellant on the basis of his
service records. The resolution does not show that the Committee had in fact
considered the suitability of the appellant for promotion to a hi_gher post at B
the time when his juniors were en1panelled for the purPoses of promotion. .If it
had done so, the €on1mittee wolild have recorded in its resolution that the
appellant had been found to be unsuitable for promotion during the relevant
time. When his case came up before the Cominittee for the first time in
December 5, 1977, it deferred the consideration of his case on the ground that
the relevant Confidential Reports were not available. Having thus deferred·
the consideration of the case of the appellant on that occasion, the Zonal c
Pron1otion Committee should have considered his case when the relevant
Confidential Reports were placed before-it and passed an appropriate resolution
instead of re1narking that his case could not be reopened. [10 C G]

C1vn. APPELLATE JURSIDlCTJON : ·civil Appeal No. 4061 of (
D
1983

Appeal by Special leave from the· Judgment 'and Order dated
the 11th March, 1981 of the Delhi High Court in C.W.P. No 371 of
1981.

A. Ganguli for the Appellant.

. K. C. Keshav Dayal, A. V. Rangam and G. Gopalakrishnan with
him for the Re&pondents .
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

VENKATARAMIAH, J. The appellant is an employee of the Food
Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation').
For purposes of administrative convenience the entire territory of
India in which the Corporation carries on its operations is divided
.G
into several Regions: The appellant was working as a Godown
Keeper in the Northern Region in the year 1961. At his resquet the
appellant was transfetred to the Eastern Region on March I, 1961.
In July, 1962, a circular was issued by the Government of India to II
the effect that an officer who was transferred from one Region to
anotherat his. own resquest should be treated as a fresh entrant in
the cadre to which be belonged in the latter Region for the purpose
.SUPREME COURT REPORTS b983] 3 s.c.ll.•
of seniority, that is, his seniority should be reckoned only from the
A date of joining 0uty in a particular post in the new Region and as o;
such he would not be entitled.to claim the benefit of service in the
particular post in the former Region for the purpose of seniority in
· the same post in the latter Region to which he was transferred. The
circular also stated that it would apply to all cases o I iransfers of
officials made on or after March I, 1960. In the seniority list dated ,.
B November l, 1969, the name of the appellant appeared against S. No.
261 but in the seniority list dated May 10, 1972, the appellant's 'name
was shown against S."N. 266 .. fn view of the seniority list dated May
10, ·1972, four persons who had been considered to be juniors· to the
appellant earlier were promoted in supersession of the claims of the
c appellant. The appellant made several representations to the authori-
·r
ties concerned against his supersession in which he questioned the
applicability of the above said circular issued in July, 1962 to him.
Since the appellant was not given any reply, he filed a petition Civil
Rule No. 6044 (W)/72 under Article 226 of the Constitution before
the High Court of Calcutta on July 14, 1972. In that petition, he
D prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respon-
dents therein, namely, the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Govern-
ment of India, the Regional Director (Food), Eastern Region, •
Governmerit of India, the Joint Manager (Port Operations). and the
Zonal Manager (Eastern Zone), Food Corporation of India ·to for-
E bear from giving effect to the aforementioned circular in his· case or
in. the alternative to transfer him back to his original place of posting
in the Northern Region with his former seniority. By its order dated
May 13, 1974, the High Court of Calcutta issued a writ in the nature
of mandamus to the respondents in that petition to consider the case
of the petitioner for transfer back to his original place of posting in
F the Northern Region within two months from the date of the com-
munication of· that order. After some correspondence, the Joint
Personnel Manager of the Corporation at New Delhi worte to the .
zonal Manager (E) of the Corporation at Calcutta that the seniority
position of appellant in the Northern Region prior to his transfer to
G the Eastern Region would be restored to him. The ·Zonal Manager,
Calcutta conveyed the above information to the appellant by his letter
dated September l,"1976. Thereafter the appellant was transferred to
the Northern Region in November, 1976. Alter.he joined his post in
the Northern Region, the appellant realiced that some of his juniors
H had been promoted to higher positions during the period when be
had been working in the Eastern Region. He, therefore, made a
G.P. SEN GUPTA v. UNION (Pe11ka1aramiah, J.)

representation on September 4, 1978 to the Managing Director
of the Corporation that his cases for promotion to the higher A
cadre should be considered with effect from the date on which
his immediate junior ha~ been promoted. He µmde a further
representation to the Personnel manager of the Corporation, on
August 27, 1979 making a similar request. On January 20, 1980, he
wrote to the Manager (Establishment) of the Corporation about his
l grievance and on January 30, 1980 to the Zonal Manager (North) of
B
the Corporation. As these representations yielded no result, the
appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
before the High Court of Delhi ·in C.W.P. No; 37)/81. That petition
was dismissed in limine by the High Court of Delhi on Mar.ch 11,
.1981. This appeal by special leave is preferred against the aforesaid
order of the High Court.
c

The case of the appellant is that since he had been reposted to
the Northern Region with the seniority which he bold before he was.
transferred to the Eastern Region, the Corporation should consider D
his case for promotion to the higher cadre as on the date on which
his immediate junior was promoted and if he is found fit he should
be given such promotion and placed above his immediate junior in
the seniority list. He also claims that he should be accorded all
consequential benefits.
E
In this Court, the Corporation has filed a counter affidavit the
deponent of which is Shri Madhusudan, Deputy Manager (A.dmn.),
of the Corporation. In the said counter affidavit, it is admitted that
before the appellant was retransferred to the Northern Region, he
had been given an assurance that bis seniority in the Northern Region
prior to his transfer to the Eastern.Region w0uld be restored. It is
F
further stated that the case of the appellant was placed before the
Zonal Pr.omotion Committee of the Corporation at its meeting held
on December 5, 1977 for considering his case for promotion to the
post of Assistant Manager (Depot) against 1970 panel wherein his G
juniors were empanelled. As the Confidential Reports relating to
the appellant for the years 1966 to 1968 were not available for assess-
ment of his suitabiHty, the Zonal Promotion Committee deferred his
case but the appellant was, however, empanelled against 1976 panel
on the basis of the ·available reports. The Confidential Reports for H
the years 1966 to 1968 were later on traced and the case of the appel·
!ant was again placed before the Zonal Promotion Committee at its '
meeting held in May, 1979 for considering his claim for Inclusion in
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ii 9S3) i S..C.R.
the 1970 panel. Thereupon the Zonal Promotion Committee passed
A a cryptic resolution to the effect that ,on the basis of records of his
service, his case cannot be reopened'. It is contended· on behalf of
the Corporation that since the promotion in question one to be made
on the basis of selection, the appellant is not entitled to any relief.

B
It may be mentioned here that the appellant was not informed by
the Corporation that , the Zonal Promotion Committee ·had found
, .
him unsuitable for being incldued in the 1970 panel. The records
pertaining to the proceedings of the Zonal Promotion Committee are
not also placed before us. The resolution passed by the Zonal
Promotion Committee does not convey the meaning which the Cor-
poration wants to attribute to it viz. that the Zonal Promotion
c Committee had found on a consideration of the relevant Confidential
Reports that the appellant was unsuitable for being included in the r
1970 panel. The resoluti.on passed by the Zonal Promotion Committee
means that it was not willing to reopen the case of the appellant on 'the
basis of his service records. The resolution does not show that the
. ZonatPromotion Committee had in fact considered the sutitability of
D the appellant for promotion to a higher post at the time when his.
juniors were empanelled for purposes of promotion. I~ it had done so,
the Zonal Promotion Committee would have recorded in· its,resolution
tliat the appellant had been found to be unsuitable for promotion
..
during the relevant time. It appears .that the Zonal Promotion
E Committee had not considered the case of the appellant in the year
1977 in accordance wtih law. As mentioned earlier when the case of
the appellant came up before the Zonal Promotion Committee for
the first time on December 5, 1977, it deferred the consideration of
the case. of the appellant on the ground that the relevant Confiden'
F tial. Reports were not available. Having thus deferred the conside,
ration of the case of the appellant on that occasion; the Zonal
Promotion Committee should have considered the case of the appel-
lant when the relevallt Confidential Reports were placed before it
and passed an appropriate resolution instead of remarking that the
case of the appellant could not be reopened. The reopening of a case
G arises only when it has been once considered and a decision is taken
thereon.· Since we have no material before us to show that there has
been such a consideration earlier, the resolution of the Zonal Promo-
tion Committee passed in'May, 1979 stating that case of the appellant
could not be reopened has to be treated as an ineffective one in the
eye of law. It is, therefore, difficult to accept the submission made
H
on behalf on the Corporation that the case of the appellant had been
duly considered by the Zonal Promotion Committee for the purpose
G.P. SEN GUPTA v. UNION (Venkataramiah, j,) ii
of including him in the 1970 panel. In these circumstances, we have
no option but .to issue a direction of the Corporation to consider A
the case of the appellant for being included in the 1970 panel. We
• accordingly allow this appeal and issue a direction to the Corporation
to consider the case of the appellant for promotion as on the date
on which his immediate junior in the Northern Region in the year
1972, that is, Respondent No. 13 was promoted and if on such
l consideration the appellant is found suitable for promotion to pro-
B
mote him to the higher cadre and place him. above such immediate
junior in higher cadre. If the appellant is so promoted, the Corpora-
tion shall also give him all consequential benefits but he would not
be entitled to any arrears of salary (the difference between the salary
of the highc.r post and salary he had actually drawn). upto the date
on which he rejoined his duties in the post in the Northern Region c
after he was retransferred.

There will be no order as to costs.

S.R. Appeal a/lowed.

•

...