Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
17496/2022 SHRI ANAND KUMAR RAKESH .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Rakesh Talukdar, Mr. Ashray Chopra, Mr. Ashutosh Singh, Mr. Aviral Bansal, Mr. Udit Bansal and Ms. Shivi Dwivedi, Advs.
Through: Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Ms. K Enatoli Sema, Mr. Prang Newmai and Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Advs.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
JUDGMENT
1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Delhi, challenging the order dated 05.08.2021, passed in W.P.(C) 7781/2021, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order passed by the respondent corporation, which accepted the appellant's application for voluntary separation.
2. To appreciate the present controversy, it is necessary to outline the facts of the case. The appellant was employed with the respondent corporation from the year 1989 and held the position of Deputy Manager, Scale-III. According to a promotion order dated 06.09.2016, the appellant was promoted to the position of Manager (Scale-IV). However, the appellant did not assume charge at the designated place of posting in Bhopal. Subsequently, on 19.09.2016, the appellant, vide email, submitted a grievance to the respondent corporation, asserting therein his inability to accept the promotion offer on account of the allegedly arbitrary transfer of his posting to Bhopal.
3. The refusal to accept the promotion was duly recorded by the respondent corporation in an order dated 20.04.2017, which records thus: “Re: Promotion Refusal- P.E. 2016-17 within Class I Officers (Upto Scale V) Reference is invited to our Circular No. 48 dated 27.04.2016 declaring vacancies for promotion to the Cadre upto Scale-V and circulars dated 29.07.2016 declaring the final selection list of Officers for promotion to the Cadres of II, III, IV & V (both under Normal Channel and Fast Track Channel) under the Promotion Exercise 2016-17. We also refer subsequent Promotion Orders issued to the Promotee Officers both under Main List and Contingency List till March 2017. The following is list of Officers who have refused the offer of promotion under the Promotion Exercise 2016-17.
REFUSAL OF PROMOTION TO THE CADRE OF CHIEF MANAGER (SCALE V)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ (SCALE-V) UNDER NORMAL CHANNEL. │ │ Sl. No. Emp. No. Name of the Officer Present Region │ │ (Shri/Ms.) Office │ ├────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 1 20514 Dayal Sharan Avasthi DO 3 RO Lucknow │ │ Kanpur │ │ REFUSAL OF PROMOTION TO THE CADRE OF MANAGER (SCALE │ │ IV) UNDER NORMAL CHANNEL. │ │ 1. 27022 Anand Kumar RO 1 Delhi RO 1 Delhi │ │ Rakesh │ │ 2. 22539 Praddep K Chhabra Service Hub, RO │ │ RO Chandigarh │ │ Chandigarh │ │ 3. 21536 Amar Nath BO Naraina RO 2 Delhi │ │ xxx │ │ As per Para-21 of the Promotion Policy for Officers 2006 and further │ │ amendments, such refusals shall be taken into account when considering │ │ their case for promotion for subsequent one Promotion Exercise.” │ │ 5. It is relevant to note that a „Promotion Policy for Officers‟ was │ │ initially formulated by the respondent corporation, which governed the │ │ promotional avenues for its officers. However, this policy was │ │ superseded by the „Promotion Policy for Officers-2006‟ („the 2006 │ │ Policy‟). │ │ 6. The respondent corporation had introduced a scheme titled │ │ General Insurance (Public Sector) Officer‟s Golden Gate Scheme for │ │ Signature Not Verified │ │ Signed By:MEENU LPA 251/2022 Page 4 of 20 │ │ KALRA │ │ Voluntary Separation, 20091, which applied to officers up to Scale VI. │ │ The scheme outlines the rationale and objectives underlying its │ │ introduction and set forth the provisions governing its implementation. │ │ The purpose of the Scheme, along with the relevant clauses pertaining │ │ to eligibility criteria and general conditions, are extracted hereunder: │ │ “1. Introduction and Preamble- │ │ Para 17 of the Promotion Policy for Officers-2006 provide for │ │ officers superseded in promotion in 3 consecutive promotion │ │ exercises to be excluded from the zone of consideration for two │ │ immediately succeeding promotional exercises. In addition, for │ │ officers in Scale VII cadre also, in terms of the Guidelines for │ │ Appointment of Chief Executives of Public Sector Insurance │ │ Companies, as approved by the Department of Personnel and │ │ Training, Government of India, not more than 3 chances are │ │ available for inclusion in the zone of consideration and appearing │ │ in the interview for selection to the post CMD, if otherwise eligible. │ │ In May, 2006 when the 1st Approach Paper for initiating debate on │ │ evolving the Promotion Policy for Officers-2006 was floated, and │ │ the idea leading to para 17 as aforesaid, was expressed, it was also │ │ indicated therein that the basic purpose of the said paragraph is to │ │ introduce the element of continuous shuffling of the manpower │ │ before subjecting it to the process of sieve for the purpose of │ │ selecting the best available manpower for undertaking the higher │ │ responsibilities. It was understood that once the person is sieved │ │ out and rested for two exercises, an opportunity would be made │ │ available to him to have self-assessment also including an │ │ introspection with the view to decide if, having regard to his │ │ potential, capabilities, strengths and weaknesses, ambitions, │ │ personal and family obligations, health conditions, aptitude, │ │ enthusiasm. The changed scenario at the workplace, technological │ │ advancements etc., in his own opinion, he feels, he should seek an │ │ honorable exit from the Company with or without the option of an │ │ alternative employment elsewhere. To cater the need of those │ │ officers who find the answer to this poser in the alternative, it was │ │ envisaged to construct a „Golden Gate‟ to enable such officers to │ │ opt for an honorable exit from the Company. In other words, the │ │ Golden Gate seeks to provide a Voluntary Separation Scheme for │ │ specified class of officers in the mutual interests of these officers, │ │ the other officers and the Company itself, in the long run. │ │ “the Scheme”, hereinafter │ └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
the Promotion Policy for Officers 2006 and further amendments, such refusals shall be taken into account when considering their case for promotion for subsequent one Promotion Exercise.”
4. Thereafter, the respondent corporation issued another promotion order dated 03.08.2018 to the post of Manager (Scale IV) with a posting at Chandigarh. The appellant again declined to accept this transfer. Consequently, an order dated 26.04.2019 was passed by the respondent corporation, recording the appellant's second refusal, which reads thus: Re: Promotion Refusals- P.E. 2018-19 within Class I Officers (Upto Scale V) Reference is invited to our Circular No. 42 dated 19.04.2018 declaring vacancies for promotion to the Cadre upto Scale-V and circulars dated 25.06.2018 declaring the final selection list of Officers for promotion to the Cadre of Scale V (both under Normal Channel and Fast Track Channel) and circulars dated 03.08.2018 declaring the final selection list of Officers for promotion to the Cadres of Scales II, III, IV (both under Normal Channel and Fast Track Channel) under the Promotion Exercise 2018-19. We also refer subsequent Promotion Orders issued to the
┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Sl. Emp. No. Name of the Officer Present Region │ │ No. (S/Shri/Ms.) Office │ ├───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 1 25479 T. Wilson DO 3 Hyderabad │ │ Hyderabad │ │ REFUSAL OF PROMOTION TO THE CADRE OF MANAGER │ │ (SCALE IV) │ │ 1 27022 Anand Kumar Rakesh RO 1 New RO 1- │ │ Delhi Delhi │ │ 2 25481 A. Chakrabarti DO23 RO 1-Delhi │ │ Devika │ │ Towers │ │ xxx │ │ As per Para-21 of the Promotion Policy for Officers 2006 and │ │ further amendments, such refusals shall be taken into account │ │ when considering their case for promotion for subsequent one │ │ Promotion Exercise.” │ │ 4. Thereafter, the respondent corporation issued another │ │ promotion order dated 03.08.2018 to the post of Manager (Scale IV) │ │ with a posting at Chandigarh. The appellant again declined to accept │ │ this transfer. Consequently, an order dated 26.04.2019 was passed by │ │ the respondent corporation, recording the appellant's second refusal, │ │ which reads thus: │ │ Re: Promotion Refusals- P.E. 2018-19 within Class I Officers (Upto │ │ Scale V) │ │ Reference is invited to our Circular No. 42 dated 19.04.2018 declaring │ │ vacancies for promotion to the Cadre upto Scale-V and circulars dated │ │ 25.06.2018 declaring the final selection list of Officers for promotion to │ │ the Cadre of Scale V (both under Normal Channel and Fast Track │ │ Channel) and circulars dated 03.08.2018 declaring the final selection list │ │ of Officers for promotion to the Cadres of Scales II, III, IV (both under │ │ Normal Channel and Fast Track Channel) under the Promotion Exercise │ │ 2018-19. We also refer subsequent Promotion Orders issued to the │ └───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
26. The contention of the appellant that his application under the Scheme was submitted under duress, frustration, or compelling circumstances is devoid of merit.
27. Once an application for voluntary separation is submitted with full knowledge and awareness, it cannot subsequently be withdrawn on the mere assertion of emotional distress. The sanctity of contractual obligations and the finality of administrative decisions must be upheld to prevent abuse of process and unwarranted retraction of binding commitments.
28. As regards the issue of allege non-compliance with the prescribed rules, the Scheme itself mandates that an application for voluntary separation be submitted with full knowledge and understanding of its consequences. In the present case, the appellant‟s application was duly submitted in the prescribed format and contained all requisite particulars, including personal details, a duly executed nomination form, and an unequivocal declaration affirming his acceptance of the terms and conditions of the Scheme.
29. Upon a meticulous examination of the general conditions prescribing the procedural requirements for submission of an application under the Scheme, it is evident that an officer intending to avail the benefit of voluntary separation is required to submit the application in the prescribed format as per Appendix A extracted (supra), in triplicate, through the proper channel, and addressed to the Competent Authority.
30. The record categorically established that the application was submitted from the appellant's official email account, in the format prescribed by the respondent, and was addressed to the Chairman and Managing Director of the Respondent Corporation.
31. Furthermore, the application submitted by the appellant records his acknowledgement that he has read, understood, and unconditionally accepted the terms and conditions governing the Scheme. Additionally, the annexure to Appendix A forming an integral part of the application, contains all requisite particulars of the Appellant, including his name, date of birth, and date of joining the Corporation. It is further noted that the appellant completed Appendix B, which is the nomination form, wherein he designated his wife as his nominee, thereby demonstrating full compliance with the procedural requirements of the mandated under the Scheme.
32. The mode and manner of submission conform to the stipulated procedural requirements under the Scheme, thereby negating any contention of irregularity or procedural infirmity.
33. In light of the foregoing discussion, it stands established that the appellant had voluntarily submitted his application under the Golden Gate Scheme in accordance with the prescribed procedural framework. The said application, having been duly processed and accepted by the Competent Authority, attained finality in law, and any subsequent attempt at withdrawal is legally impermissible.
34. In view of the afore-stated findings, this Court finds no merit in the present appeal.
35. Accordingly, the order of the learned Single Judge is upheld and the present appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
36. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. AJAY DIGPAUL, J.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.