IMPORTANT POINT
The court clarified that directions for promotion do not imply automatic promotions to higher scales without meeting eligibility criteria.

JUDGMENT :

DHARMESH SHARMA, J.

1. The petitioner is seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, 1950, for non-compliance with the directions of the Division Bench, as contained in the order dated 13.09.2023, in LPA[Letters Patent Appeal] No. 630/2023.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION:

2. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the record, at the outset, this Court finds that the present contempt petition is bereft of any merits.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioner was aggrieved by his non-promotion to Scale-III cadre of the respondent during the supplementary promotion exercise of the year 2008-09 and the Promotion Exercise [“PE”] of the year 2009-10.According to the petitioner, this was due to adverse remarks in the ACRs[Annual Confidential Reports] for the years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09, which were not communicated to him. It is pertinent to mention here that, during the interregnum, the petitioner has been promoted and is currently working in Scale-V and his grievance, however, is that despite this promotion, officers who were previously junior to him have now become senior to him. Therefore, he sought promotion to Scale-VI, claiming parity with his juniors who were promoted in the PE of the year 2008-09 and 2009-10.

4. On the petitioner filing W.P. (C) 11278/2009[Report case S.S. Yadav v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. [2023 SCC OnLine Del 4828], the following observations and directions came to be passed vide judgment dated 10.08.2023:

“28. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is satisfied that petitioner was wrongly not given the promotion to Scale III in the Promotion Exercise of the aforesaid years, i.e., 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. The ACRs for the years where there were adverse remarks against petitioner which were not communicated to petitioner, could not have been taken into account by respondent at the time of considering the case of petitioner for promotion. Non-promotion of petitioner to Scale III Cadre of respondent in the Promotion Exercise of 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, is mired with arbitrariness and is in complete contravention of law. The non-communication of adverse remarks and the manner in which marks have been allotted to petitioner in the parameter of Work Record, is completely unacceptable. However, considering the fact that a considerable time has already lapsed and that petitioner has already been granted promotion to Scale V Cadre, no purpose would be served in directing petitioner herein to make representation against the uncommunicated ACRs containing adverse remarks or directing respondent herein to consider such representation.

29. Resultantly, it is held that petitioner is entitled to notional promotion to Scale III Cadre of respondent from the date when promotion was granted to other employees in the Promotion Exercise of the year 2009-2010 with all consequential benefits in accordance with law. Petitioner is also held entitled to notional promotion to Scale IV Cadre and Scale V Cadre from the date he would have been entitled to take part in the Promotion Exercise on the basis of his promotion to Scale III Cadre in the promotion exercise of the year 2009-2010, with all consequential benefits in accordance with law.

x x x x x x

35. In view thereof, it is directed that petitioner be considered in the Promotion Exercise for the next scale i.e. Scale VI, as per the policy of respondent for such promotion.”

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the respondent preferred LPA No. 630/2023, wherein the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.09.2023 observed and directed as under:

“6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant Company contends that an automatic notional promotion to Scale III, Scale IV and Scale V cadre with retrospective effect could not have been granted to the Respondent