Promotion denial based on sealed cover procedure without adherence to natural justice principles is unlawful, entitling the employee to retrospective benefits.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. The instant civil writ petition is filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs.

"A writ of Mandamus or any other writ or direction in the nature thereof, thereby to promote the petitioner to next Higher grade Or grades with all financial and non financial benefits with retrospective effect with consequential relief(s)."

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The Petitioner joined office of the Respondents as an Assistant (a class III employee) at Delhi Branch on 19th March 1997 vide appointment letter dated 18th March 1997. She had passed a departmental test and was promoted to `Higher Grade Assistant' in the year 2001.

3. The Petitioner used to sit at the cash counter on rotation basis and used to receive cheques and deposit the same in the account of Respondents after proper approval of the competent authority. The Respondents had filed a case for financial indiscipline/fraud committed by the officers and employees of the Respondents with the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as "CBI") as case No.9234 in the year 2003. Many Class-I and Class-III employees were called by the CBI for interrogation.

4. The Petitioner has been called for promotion test since 2006 onwards but was denied promotion. On enquiry it was revealed that her result was kept in a sealed cover on account of a pending vigilance case against her.

5. The Respondents called for explanation of the Petitioner vide letter dated 6th December 2006 qua the irregularities committed in the Branch Unit 11C, Khan Market, Delhi, where the Petitioner was posted at the relevant time. The Petitioner submitted her reply vide letter dated 11th December 2006.

6. The Petitioner repeatedly represented her request to the Respondents for consideration of her promotion vide letters dated 10th December 2010, 19th July 2011, 20th January 2012 and 26th March 2012, but no action was taken by the Respondents.

7. Being aggrieved by the refusal of the promotion and other benefits by the Respondents, the Petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the instant writ petition.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that as per the circular dated 18th May 2005 issued by the Personnel & Administration Department of Respondents, the procedure for sealed cover is very specific. The promotion result shall be kept under sealed cover in following circumstances:

a. Employee under suspension.

b. Employee in respect of whom a charge sheet has been issued for the pending vigilance/disciplinary cases.

c. Employee in respect of whom prosecution for criminal charge is pending.

The petitioner does not fall within the purview of any of above conditions, hence it was submitted that the denial of promotion is contrary to the aforesaid circular.

9. It was further contended that the management of the Life Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "LIC") cannot discriminate between Class-I and Class-III employees on the pretext of vigilance case pending against them without giving an opportunity to defend the same, as though the vigilance case was pending against both the category of employees but Class-I employees had already been promoted with the exception of only one employee and none of the Class-III employees were promoted. The Petitioner was only given a letter on 6th December 2006 to which the Petitioner had submitted her reply on 11th December 2006 and thereafter no further disciplinary action was initiated until the filing of the present writ petition which shows that the reply to the letter was to the utmost satisfaction of the Respondent.

10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also submits that no case of either vigilance/disciplinary/criminal was pending against the Petitioner on records till the filing of the present writ petition. Even if any vigilance case was pending against the Petitioner