Court Orders Restoration of Writ Petition and Grants Promotion with Retiral Benefits to Petitioner
In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court has ruled in favor of Ram Autar Singh Yadav, a retired Station Officer, in a case concerning the denial of promotion based on adverse remarks that were not communicated to him. The court found that such denial violated the principles of natural justice and placed the onus on the department to prove that adverse remarks were communicated to the employee.
The division bench, consisting of Justices Arindam Sinha and Satya Veer Singh, restored and allowed Yadav's writ petition, which had been previously dismissed for want of prosecution. The court underscored that the responsibility to demonstrate communication of adverse entries lies with the department, not the petitioner.
Yadav, who had filed a claim for promotion citing that his juniors were promoted over him, was denied on the grounds of adverse remarks in his confidential reports. However, the department failed to provide evidence of communicating these remarks to him, which the court viewed as a breach of natural justice.
The High Court's decision was informed by the Supreme Court's judgment in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, emphasizing a liberal approach in condoning delays to ensure justice is served on the merits of the case. The court noted the petitioner's diligence, despite his advanced age and language barriers, in pursuing the case.
The court ordered the restoration of Yadav’s writ petition, dismissed earlier for non-prosecution, and directed the respondents to promote him retrospectively from March 16, 1980, along with the payment of promotional salary and retiral benefits. The judgment highlighted the state's failure to substantiate the adverse remarks and the lack of a record of assessment for Yadav's promotion consideration.
This ruling reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to upholding fairness and justice in employment-related grievances, ensuring that procedural lapses do not hinder rightful promotions and entitlements.
Bottom Line :
Denial of promotion on the basis of adverse remarks not communicated to the employee violates principles of natural justice. The onus to prove communication of adverse remarks lies with the department.
Statutory provision(s): Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5
Ram Autar Singh Yadav v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2958574
