Employers are bound by their own promotion schemes, and once eligibility criteria are met, promotions must be granted.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the appellant/defendant in the suit impugning the judgment of the first appellate Court dated 13.2.2001 by which the first appellate Court had set aside the judgment of the trial Court dated 1.3.1995. Trial Court by its judgment dated 1.3.1995 had dismissed the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs, and the first appellate Court by its impugned judgment dated 13.2.2001 has decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff. At the outset however I may note that the present appeal will only be decided as regards only one of the plaintiff Sh. V.K. Gupta, out of original five plaintiffs, inasmuch as counsel for the appellant/defendant informs that all other plaintiffs have given up their rights and which is clear from the fact that the first appeal filed before the court below was only on behalf of Sh. V.K. Gupta/respondent.

2. The subject suit was filed by the respondent Sh. V.K. Gupta seeking two reliefs. The first relief sought was that the promotion which was granted to the respondent from the post of Assistant to the post of Section Officer should not be granted w.e.f 1989 but should be granted earlier from November 1985 and when 7 years service stood completed. The second relief which was prayed in the suit was for grant of the pay-scale of Rs.2000-3500 (in the higher grade) instead of the lower pay-scale granted i.e. respondent/plaintiff Sh. V.K. Gupta pleaded that the grade pay of Section Officer was not Rs.550-970 as was granted to the respondent/plaintiff by the appellant/defendant but was in fact Rs. 650-1200.

3. Para 10 of the plaint and prayer clause of the plaint read as under:-

Para 10 of the plaint

“10. That the plaintiffs, although were promoted only in the year 1989, however, they have completed their respective Seven Years of Services in their lower posts and grade as under:-

S.No.	Name	Due Date of Promotion	Due Grade
(i)	SHRI M.S. PELIA	1985 (August)	2000-3500
(ii)	Shri V.K. Gupta	1985 (November)	2000-3500
(iii)	Shri B.P. Bahuguma	1988 (May)	2000-3500
(iv)	Shri Rajan Phull	1988 (October)	2000-3500
(v)	Shrimati Manju Kant	1988 (August)	2000-3500

Prayer Clause

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant a decree of DECLARATION with mandatory injunction that the plaintiffs are entitled for the benefits of their respective promotions in the proper grade of Rs.2000/- to Rs.3500/- duly effective w.e.f. the last date of the month when they completed their seven years of services in the existing grade before their promotions.”

4. In response to para 10 of the plaint, the appellant/defendant when it filed its written statement did not deny the scheme which entitled grant of promotion after 7 years. Also, there was only a general denial with respect to the entitlement of the grade without the written statement specifying that the pay-scale claimed by the respondent/plaintiff was not the pay-scale of the promotion post of Section Officer. Para 10 of the written statement reads as under:-

“10. In reply to para 10 of the plaint, it is submitted that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to the promotion as a matter of right and it is in the discretion of the Academy to five promotions from any date. It is absolutely wrong that the plaintiffs became entitled to promotion from the dates mentioned in the para under reply or that they become entitled to the grades mentioned in para under reply. Para 10 of the plaint is denied in toto.”

5. In the written statement the appellant/defendant also raised a plea that it was not a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and hence being a private organization it was not bound to grant promotion or a particular higher pay-scale/grade pay.

6. Trial Court after pleadings were compl