Employees Have Right To Be Promptly Informed Of Decisions Affecting Their Service Benefits To Enable Timely Recourse: Gujarat High Court

The Division Bench consisting of Justice AS Supehia and Justice Mauna M Bhatt took a stern view against about three years delay in communicating High Court Registrar General's decision denying promotion to the Appellant, who retired as Grade-I Stenographer from District Court. It said,“We are constrained to make the observations in the manner that the entire issue has been dealt with by the respondents. No explanation is coming forth from the respondents for the delay in communicating the letter dated 07.10.2014, and why it was communicated in the year 2017...In fact, the delay has occurred on the part of the respondents. Such an approach was not expected from the esteemed respondent-Institutions. The employees are entitled to know the orders/communications/decisions immediately, which jeopardize their careers or service benefits, so that they can take proper recourse questioning them.”The appellant retired in July 2013, having become eligible for promotion on May 12, 2013. Upon learning about the order denying him the promotion to the post of Principal Private Secretary, he submitted a representation to the Registrar General of the High Court.The Registrar General, in turn, wrote to the Principal District Judge, explaining that the appellant was not appointed ex-post facto to the position of Principal Private Secretary, Class-I due to two reasons: (i) adverse remarks in his Confidential Report for the period from May 18, 2012, to March 31, 2013, and (ii) an 'average' rating in his merit-cum-efficiency report for the last five years.After reviewing the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court criticized the respondents' handling of the issue, describing their approach as casual and lackadaisical, particularly regarding the recording and communication of entries in confidential reports."The entries in the confidential reports are recorded in a perfunctory manner, and are not in rhyme with the administrative instructions governing the confidential reports. It is surprising that for the period from 2009 to 2010, the confidential reports are missing, and without the record, the same are considered for denying the promotion. There is no record available suggesting that the adverse remarks are communicated to the appellant," the court stated.Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and directed the respondents to grant promotion, upgradation, or appointment to the appellant to the post of Principal Private Secretary, Class-I, retroactively from the date of his eligibility.Case Title: Babubhai Jethabhai Patel v. Registrar General & Ors.LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 86Click here to read/download the Judgment

Employees Have Right To Be Promptly Informed Of Decisions Affecting Their Service Benefits To Enable Timely Recourse: Gujarat High Court

Bhavya Singh

Tags