Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Del) 511

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ, TEJAS KARIA, J.
Pankaj Prakash - Appellant
Versus
United India Insurance Company Limited And Anr. - Respondents
LPA 72 of 2024 & CM APPL. 70543 of 2025
Decided On : 29-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Mr. Chisho G. Kiho, Ms. Rokosieno Meyase and Mr. Prang
Newmai, Advocates. Mr. P.S. Singh, Advocate

Public authorities must communicate all performance evaluation entries to employees to ensure transparency. Relying on uncommunicated adverse assessments for promotional decisions is arbitrary and violates the principles of natural justice; therefore, such reports must be excluded from evaluation processes.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Right to Equality and principles of natural justice - Administrative law - Promotion - Communication of performance appraisal reports - Every entry in the performance assessment report of an employee, whether negative or satisfactory, must be communicated in a reasonable period to ensure transparency and provide an opportunity for representation. (Paras 23, 27)

(B) Service Law - Promotion - Use of uncommunicated adverse performance assessment reports - Reliance on adverse reports that were not communicated to the employee at the material time is impermissible - Such assessments cannot be considered for promotion exercises as it violates the requirements of fairness and equity. (Paras 24, 27)

Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged the dismissal of a petition concerning the denial of a promotion based on a past performance appraisal exercise. The primary grievance was that an adverse entry in the performance records for a specific year was not communicated to the appellant until several years after the promotional process had concluded, thereby depriving the appellant of the chance to challenge or rectify the grading at the relevant time. Despite subsequent judicial directions to reconsider the performance records, the employer maintained the original decision to deny promotion.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the reliance on an uncommunicated adverse assessment report, which held a material impact on promotional prospects, was fundamentally unfair and contrary to established legal principles. The court emphasized that a model employer must adhere to transparent procedures. Given that the specific negative entry remained withheld until long after the promotion exercise, the court determined that it should be disregarded in the interest of a fair assessment.

Issues: Whether an authority is permitted to rely upon an uncommunicated adverse performance assessment report to deny an employee promotion, and whether such an assessment remains valid for consideration several years after the promotional exercise.

Ratio Decidendi: To satisfy the requirements of natural justice and prevent arbitrary decision-making, all performance assessments must be communicated to the employee in a timely manner. Uncommunicated adverse entries cannot be used as a basis for evaluating performance during promotional processes, as such actions contravene the duty to treat employees with fairness and transparency.

Result: Appeal allowed. The impugned judgment was set aside, and the employer was directed to conduct a fresh promotional evaluation by disregarding the uncommunicated adverse performance entry.

Table of Content
1. historical sequence of the appellant's promotion dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
2. parties argument regarding uncommunicated apars and promotion rights. (Para 18 , 19)
3. uncommunicated adverse apars invalidate promotion assessment decisions. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
4. mandatory exclusion of uncommunicated apars for promotion reconsideration. (Para 32 , 33)
5. granting consequential benefits for retrospective promotion eligibility. (Para 34 , 35)

JUDGMENT :

TEJAS KARIA, J.

1. The present intra-court Appeal has been filed by the Appellant assailing the judgment dated 15.12.2023 (“Impugned Judgment”) passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 44/2021 (“Writ Petition”), dismissing the Writ Petition.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. Respondent No. 1 is a leading general insurance company, and Respondent No. 2 is the Deputy General Manager of Respondent No. 1 Company. The Appellant joined the services of Respondent No. 1 on 27.11.1989 as a direct recruit in Scale I and was subsequently promoted to Scale II in 1998. Thereafter, the Appellant was promoted to Scale III in 2009.

3. According to the Appellant, the next promotion fell due in the promotion exercise for the year 2014-15, which was conducted on the basis of the written examination, seniority, and Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (“APARs”).

4. The Appellant appeared in the written examination and secured 71 marks out of 100. However, upon declaration of the result of the promotion exercise on 29.05.2014, the Appellant was not selected for promotion. The Appellant thereafter filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”) on 02.06.2014 seeking copies of the APARs for the years 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13. In response thereto, Respondent No. 1, by letter dated 02.07.2014, furnished the final APAR ratings awarded to the Appellant.

5. Subsequently, the Appellant submitted another RTI application dated 04.08.2014, inter alia, seeking information from Respondent No. 1 Company regarding the marks obtained by him and the minimum cut-off marks prescribed for the promotion exercise conducted in 2014-15. By letter dated 09.09.2014, the Central Public Information Officer (“CPIO”) responded by disclosing the total marks secured by the Appellant in the said promotion exercise as well as the cut-off marks for promotion from Scale III to Scale IV. The Appellant had also sought the minutes of his interview under the fast-track channel in the promotion exercise of 2014-15; in reply thereto, the CPIO stated that the said minutes could not be furnished as the same were exempt under Section 8(1)(b) of the RTI Act.

6. The Appellant instituted Writ Petition No. 7631(S/B)/2016 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, seeking, inter alia, quashing of the result of the promotion exercise undertaken by the Respondents and a direction for consideration of his case for promotion. The said writ petition came to be dismissed by judgment dated 06.10.2016. Thereafter, the review petition preferred by the Appellant, being Review Petition No. 103173/2016, was also dismissed by order dated 17.01.2017.

7. Thereafter, the Appellant preferred Civil Appeal Nos. 5340- 5341/2019 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court assailing the aforesaid judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 06.10.2016 and 17.01.2017, respectively, on the ground that the entries in the APARs had not been disclosed to him, thereby depriving him of the opportunity to submit an appropriate representation at the relevant time.

8. Vide judgment dated 10.07.2019, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the said Civil Appeals, set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, and directed the Respondents to communicate to the Appellant the previously uncommunicated entries in the APARs considered for the promotion exercise of 2014-15.

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court furth

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Del) 511

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIDEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ, TEJAS KARIA, J.Pankaj Prakash - AppellantVersusUnited India Insurance Company Limited And Anr. - RespondentsLPA 72 of 2024 & CM APPL. 70543 of 2025Decided On : 29-05-2026

Cases Referred (6)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ, TEJAS KARIA, J.
Pankaj Prakash - Appellant
Versus
United India Insurance Company Limited And Anr. - Respondents
LPA 72 of 2024 & CM APPL. 70543 of 2025
Decided On : 29-05-2026