Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/1420/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1420 of 2010
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2914 of 2010
=========================================
LIC
OF INDIA CLASS-I OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER
Versus
LIFE
INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
=========================================Appearance
:
MR AK VADERA
for MR CN TRIVEDI for
the Appellants
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Date
: 14/03/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)
1. We
have heard learned counsel Mr. A.K. Vadera holding brief of Mr. C.N.
Trivedi for the appellants.
2. The
respondent-LIC promoted the appellant No.2 from the post of
Administrative Officer to the post of Assistant Divisional Manager as
per the promotion list dated 23.4.2009. By order 4.5.2009, issued by
the respondent-LIC, the appellant No.2 was informed that he has been
posted as a Manager (I.T.) in Gandhinagar Divisional Office and he
was required to join within a period of seven days.
3. Appellant
No.2, on 7.5.2009, wrote a letter to the respondent-LIC, requesting
to change his place of posting from Gandhinagar to Ahmedabad, where
he was serving as an Administrative Officer, on the ground that he
was aged 59 years. The competent authority, by order dated 27.5.2009,
advised appellant No.2 to take charge of the new assignment
immediately, failing which, his promotion would be cancelled.
4. Instead
of following the advice of the respondent-LIC, appellant No.2 again
wrote a letter dated 30.5.2009 that he is willing to accept the
promotion unconditionally. However, by letter dated 6.6.2009, he
requested the respondent-LIC to relieve him from the post at
Ahmedabad on 17.6.2009 to enable him to take charge of the
promotional post on 18.6.2009.
5. Appellant
No.2 was informed by the respondent-LIC that he shall be relieved
after office hours on 8.6.2009 and thereafter, he has to take charge
of the new assignment, failing which, his promotion would be
cancelled without any further intimation. In spite of the said letter
of the respondent-LIC, appellant No.2 did not join on the promotional
post at Gandhinagar.
6. The
respondent-LIC, by letter dated 11.6.2009, cancelled the promotion
order of appellant No.2, which was also informed to him by letter
dated 15.6.2009.
7. Against
the cancellation of the promotion order, appellant No.2 filed an
appeal before the Chairman, also sent legal notice and ultimately
filed a writ petition before this Court.
8. Learned
Single Judge considered the matter and came to the conclusion that
appellant No.2 had failed to resume duty at the place where he was
promoted, within the time prescribed by the office orders and
therefore, the respondents have cancelled his promotion. Apart from
the promotion of the appellant No.2, 72 other promotions were also
cancelled. Therefore, the learned Singe Judge was of the view that
it is not a case of malafide or victimization by the
respondent-LIC.
9. Having
heard the learned counsel for the appellants, we are of the opinion
that once appellant No.2 was promoted and time was fixed for joining
at the promotional post, he could not dictate terms to his superior
that he will join the place of his choice. Though, earlier,
sufficient indulgence was given by the respondent-LIC permitting
appellant No.2 to join on the promotional post, the appellant kept
on insisting that either he be posted at Ahmedabad, where he was
earlier serving as Administrative Officer, or time may be extended
and for the same, he has been making applications from time to time.
Such attitude of appellant No.2 shows that he has got no regards for
the orders passed by his superior officers. Appellant No.2 did not
join the promotional post, for which, only he has to blame himself.
The learned Single Judge rightly did not interfere with the matter.
10. The
learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on para 9 of
the judgment of the learned Single Judge that, in future, if any
promotional post is available and is vacant and the appellant is
found eligible, then he shall be considered as per the prevailing
policy. This argument is fallacious inasmuch as the appellant has
retired in September 2010.
11. We are
in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. This
appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
(V.M.
SAHAI, J.)
(G.B.
SHAH, J.)
omkar
Top