Employee Can't Be Denied Promotion Due To Employer's Failure To Timely Communicate Annual Performance Reports: Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court has held that denial of promotion by Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd based on Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) communicated belatedly violates principles of natural justice, and directed reconsideration of an employee's promotion without applying the benchmark requirement.Justice Maulik J. Shelat was hearing a writ petition filed by...
The Gujarat High Court has held that denial of promotion by Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd based on Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) communicated belatedly violates principles of natural justice, and directed reconsideration of an employee's promotion without applying the benchmark requirement.
Justice Maulik J. Shelat was hearing a writ petition filed by Susheel Patil challenging the decision of IRCTC denying him promotion from Grade E-3 to Grade E-4 on the ground that he had not met the benchmark score of 21 out of 25 prescribed under the IRCTC Promotion Policy, 2012.
“… the action of the respondent in not communicating previous years' APARs within a reasonable time to the petitioner prior to 2013 is nothing but an unfair action on its part, which is violative of the principles of natural justice… As such, right of the petitioner either to effectively made representation or to improve his standards got severally affected due to high handedness of the respondent by belatedly communicated the APARs,” the Court noted.
The petitioner was appointed in IRCTC in 2005 and promoted to Grade E-3 in 2009 under the earlier promotion rules, which did not prescribe any benchmark. However, after introduction of the Promotion Policy, 2012, a benchmark of 21 points based on the last five years' APARs was introduced. Since the petitioner's cumulative APAR score fell below the benchmark, he was not considered for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee in 2013.
Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Gautam Joshi argued that the respondent had communicated the petitioner's APARs for the years 2008-09 to 2011-12 together in one lot only on 2 April 2013, instead of communicating them annually as required. He submitted that such belated communication deprived the petitioner of the opportunity to improve his performance and effectively represent against adverse entries, thereby violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and settled Supreme Court precedent including Dev Dutt v. Union of India.
Opposing the petition, advocate Sudhir M. Mehta for IRCTC submitted that the APARs had been communicated before the promotional exercise and the petitioner had an opportunity to submit representations, which were duly considered and rejected. He argued that there was no illegality in applying the benchmark criteria under the 2012 rules, and that promotion rules applicable at the time of consideration would govern the process.
After examining the record, the Court held that communicating multiple years' APARs together "after an inordinate delay" defeated the very purpose of such communication. The Court observed that timely communication of APARs serves a dual purpose, first, allowing the employee to improve performance and second, to make meaningful representations regarding their score. Belated communication frustrated both objectives.
The Court further noted that the petitioner's subsequent APARs reflected “Very Good” and “Outstanding” performance after regular communication began, demonstrating that timely communication had a direct bearing on performance improvement and career progression.
Holding that the respondent's action was arbitrary and unfair, and had violated the petitioner's fundamental right to be considered for promotion, the Court quashed the denial of promotion.
The Court directed IRCTC to convene a Departmental Promotion Committee within one month and reconsider the petitioner's promotion from Grade E-3 to Grade E-4 without applying the benchmark requirement. It further directed that if found eligible, the petitioner be granted promotion from the date his junior was promoted, with continuity of service and notional benefits, though without monetary arrears.
The petition was allowed.
Case title: Susheel Patil v. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
Case no.: R/Special Civil Application No. 13473 of 2013
Appearance: Mr. Gautam Joshi, Senior Counsel with Mr. Aaditya D. Bhatt and Mr. Chandni S. Joshi appeared for the Petitioner. Mr. Sudhir M. Mehta appeared for the Respondents Nos. 1 to 4.