Back
2025 Supreme(HP) 771
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.
Gopal Singh. - Petitioner
Versus
Indian Overseas Bank& Ors. – Respondents
CWP No.5854 of 2023
Decided On : 26-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Parav Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate.
Promotion cannot be forfeited without proper communication and adherence to principles of natural justice.
Headnote:
(A) Promotion and Reversion - Principles of Natural Justice - The petitioner was promoted to the Clerical cadre but reverted to the Sub-Clerical cadre due to late reporting. The court found that the promotion was not communicated properly, and the reversion was unjustified. (Paras 4(i), 4(iii), 4(iv))
(B) Employment Law - The court emphasized that an employee should be given notice and an opportunity to explain before such a drastic action as reversion is taken. (Paras 4(iii), 4(iv))
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was promoted to Clerk effective 01.04.2023 but was reverted due to not reporting by the cut-off date of 24.04.2023. The promotion was communicated late, leading to the petition.
Findings of Court:
The court allowed the petition, quashed the reversion, and deemed the petitioner promoted as Clerk from 01.04.2023, entitled to all consequential benefits.
Issues: The main issues were whether the promotion was communicated properly and if the reversion was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the failure to communicate the promotion in a timely manner and the lack of notice before reversion violated principles of natural justice.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.
Petitioner was promoted as Clerk. He joined as such. Later, the respondents withdrew the promotion from the petitioner and reverted him to the Sub Clerical cadre citing that he had joined a day later to the cut-off date fixed for the purpose. Hence, the petition.
2. Facts.
2(i). Petitioner was serving in the Sub-Clerical cadre at Slappar Branch of the respondent-Bank at the relevant time.
2(ii). Respondents promoted the petitioner to the Clerical cadre on 01.04.2023. The office communication dated 15.04.2023 (Annexure P-2) was statedly addressed to the petitioner informing about his promotion to the Clerical cadre w.e.f. 01.04.2023 and his posting as such at NER Branch under Chandigarh region of the respondent-Bank. The office letter contained a recital that the petitioner was to join at NER Branch by 24.04.2023, failing which his promotion would be forfeited.
2(iii). The petitioner was relieved from his duties by Slappar Branch on 25.04.2023. Soon thereafter, the same day he joined as Clerk, consequent upon his promotion as Clerk, at NER Branch.
2(iv). The respondents vide email dated 28.04.2023, cancelled the promotion of the petitioner on the ground that he had not reported at the posting station by the cut-off date, i.e. 24.04.2023. He was reverted as Messenger and directed to immediately report back at Slappar Branch as a Messenger.
The aforesaid circumstances have given rise to this writ petition, wherein following substantive reliefs have been prayed for:-
“i). That the order of reversion/relieving of the Petitioner from the Clerical Cadre to Class-IV post made vide letter dated 29.4.2023 at Annexure P-
10, may kindly be quashed and set aside.
ii) That the Respondents may be directed to release the benefits of the post of Clerical cadre to the Petitioner w.e.f. due date with all consequential benefits.”
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file.
4. Consideration.
In my considered view, this petition deserves to be allowed and with cost. This is for the following reasons:-
It is not in dispute that petitioner was promoted to Clerical cadre w.e.f. 01.04.2023. The respondents have defended forfeiting petitioner’s promotion as Clerk and reverting him to the post of Messenger on the ground that under office communication dated 15.04.2023, petitioner had been informed about his promotion as Clerk and that he was to report at NER Branch on 24.04.2023 and further that failure to do so would result in forfeiture of his promotion. Since the petitioner did not report at the NER Branch (posted branch) on 24.04.2023, his promotion was justifiably cancelled and the petitioner was rightly reverted to Slappar Branch in the capacity of Messenger.
4(i). Firstly, it is to be noticed that there is nothing on on record to indicate as to when the promotion order was actually communicated to the petitioner by the respondent. In what manner office letter dated 15.04.2023 was conveyed to the petitioner, is not borne out from the record. The respondents have not appended anything along with their reply to demonstrate service of office letter dated 15.04.2023 upon the petitioner in any manner whatsoever.
4(ii). Secondly, the petitioner was admittedly working as Sub-Clerical staff at Slappar Branch on 15.04.2023. It was Slappar Branch that issued a communication to the petitioner on 25.04.2023 informing him about his promotion as Clerk, his posting as such at NER Branch and accordingly relieved him from Slappar Branch. Petitioner was relieved by the Slapper Branch on 25.04.2023. It is this relieving order placed on record as Annexure P-4 that informed the petitioner that he had been promoted as Clerk and transferred as such to NER Branch and he should immediately report for duty at the posted branch. Accordingly, on being relieved from Slappar Branch on 25.04.2023, the same day petitioner reported for duty at NER Branch, where he was sent on promotion as Clerk.
It is also pertinent to notice that petition
