Pankaj Prakash VS United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

PROJECT SUBMITTED IN THE FULFILMENT OF THE COURSE FOR

Labour Laws II FOR ATTAINING THE DEGREE OF B.B.A.LL.B (HONS.)

PROJECT SUBMITTED TO: -

Ms. PALLAVI SHANKAR
FACULTY OF LAW

PROJECT SUBMITTED BY:-

SATYANAND
FIFTH SEMESTER
ROLL NUMBER – 2041
B.B.A. LL.B. (HONS.)

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

NYAYA NAGAR, MITHAPUR, PATNA – 800001

1
 DECLARATION BY THE CANDIDATE

I hereby declare that the work report in that B.B.A.LLB(Hons.) project report entitled
“Pankaj Prakash VS United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ” submitted at CHANAKYA
NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY is an authentic record of my work carried out under
supervision of Ms. Pallavi Shankar. I have not submitted this work elsewhere for any
other degree or diploma. I am fully responsible for my project report.

SIGNATURE OF THE CANDIDATE

NAME OF THE CANDIDATE: SATYANAND

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The present project on “Pankaj Prakash VS United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ” has been
able to get its final shape with the support and help of people from various quarters. My sincere
thanks go to all the members without whom the study could not have come to its present state.
I am proud to acknowledge gratitude to the individuals during my study and without whom the
study may not be completed. I have taken this opportunity to thank those who genuinely helped
me.

With immense pleasure, I express my deepest sense of gratitude to Ms. Pallavi Shankar,
Faculty of Law, Chanakya National Law University for helping me in my project. I am also
thankful to the whole Chanakya National Law University family that provided me all the
material I required for the project. Not to forget thanking to my parents without the co-
operation of which completion of this project would not had been possible.

I have made every effort to acknowledge credits, but I apologies in advance for any omission
that may have inadvertently taken place.

Satyanand

Roll No.: 2041

5th semester

Course:
B.B.A.LL.B.
 CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................5

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES.....................................................................5

HYPOTHESIS.......................................................................................6

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY............................................................6

SOURCES OF DATA............................................................................6

METHOD OF WRITING.......................................................................6

LIMITATION OF THE STUDY.............................................................6

2. FACTS OF THE CASE.......................................................................7

3. GIST OF ARGUMENTS OF PROSECUTION & COUNSEL FOR . . .

APPELLANT........................................................................................10

4. JUDGEMENT...................................................................................09

5. CONCLUSION..................................................................................10

BIBLIOGRAPHY..................................................................................11

4
 1. INTRODUCTION

The case of Prakash VS United India Insurance Co. Ltd. was decided by a division bench of
Supreme Court comprising of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Indira Banerjee

In Pankaj Prakash vs. United India Insurance Co Ltd., the Plaintiff was aggrieved by the
fact that the entries in his Annual Performance Appraisal Report for 2010-11 and 2011-12 were
not disclosed, as a result of which he was unable to submit a representation at the material time.
The petitioner approached the Court under. Article 226 of the. Constitution of India . The High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which was moved by the appellant in proceedings Article 226,
was in error in coming to the conclusion that absent an adverse entry or an entry below the
benchmark, the failure to communicate did not result in an actionable grievance. The High Court
dismissed the writ petition by its judgment dated 6 October 2016 as well as the review petition
by its judgment dated 17 January 2017. The writ petition, which he had filed before the
Allahabad High Court was dismissed on the ground that, absent an adverse entry or an entry
below the benchmark, the failure to communicate did not result in an actionable grievance.
The present proceedings were instituted assailing the judgments of the High Court.

The bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Indira Banerjee noted that a three
judge bench of the Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh vs. Union of India has held that, every entry
in ACR of a public servant must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period.

5
 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

1) The researcher tends to extensively study the Judgment of this case.

2) The researcher tends to analyze the provisions related to promotion.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The researcher relied on the doctrinal method of research to complete this project.

SOURCES OF DATA

The researcher will be relying on both primary and secondary sources to complete the project.

1. Primary Sources: Acts & Statutes

2. Secondary Sources: Case laws, websites, books etc.

METHOD OF WRITING

The method of writing followed in the course of this research paper is primarily analytical.

LIMITATION OF THE STUDY

The Researcher as a student has completed the project. He has access to a limited area and having a
limited time.

6
 2. FACTS OF THE CASE

The dispute in the present case arises from the appellant’s claim for promotion from Scale III to
Scale IV in the services of the respondents. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as
Assistant Administrative Officer in United India Insurance Company on 27.11.1989 through
direct recruitment process. Thereafter, he was promoted as Administrative Officer on the basis of
selection held in the month of May, 1998 and as Deputy Manager in the month of August, 2009.
The next promotion for which he is entitled is the post of Manager (Scale IV). This promotion is
made on the basis of written examination, annual performance appraisal reports and seniority.

It has been averred in the writ petition that as per the Promotion Policy, the employee after
working three years on the post of Deputy Manager (Scale III) becomes eligible for promotion to
the post of Manager (Scale IV). The petitioner having been promoted on the post of Deputy
Manager (Scale III) in the month of August, 2009, he has become eligible in August, 2012 for
promotion as he has completed three years of service on the post of Deputy Manager (Scale III).
It has been pointed out that he could only be considered for promotion in 2014 when his batch of
2009 was considered for promotion to the post of Manager (Scale IV).

According to the petitioner, the result of promotion of his batch was declared on 29/05/2014 in
which his name was missing, therefore, he immediately preferred a representation to the
Chairman-cum-Managing Director on 13.06.2014 through proper channel as well as through
email directly but no heed was paid compelling the petitioner to question the action of the
department in not promoting him on the post of Manager by filing Writ Petition No. 7631/(S/B)
of 2016 (Pankaj Prakash vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & ors.). During the pendency
of the aforesaid writ petition, bearing No. 7631 (S/B) of 2016, the promotion exercises for
financial year 2016-17 and 2017-18 were completed in the month of July, 2016 and October,
2017 respectively, but once again the petitioner was illegally denied promotion.

7
According to the petitioner, the criteria of promotion is merit-cum-seniority, and candidates are
selected on the basis of overall ranking obtained under the parameters of merit as adjudicated by
the score in written test, work record and interview as well as seniority.

The case of the employee was that the entries in his Annual Performance Appraisal Report for
2010-11 and 2011-12 were not disclosed, as a result of which he was unable to submit a
representation at the material time The writ petition, which he had filed before the Allahabad
High Court was dismissed on the ground that, absent an adverse entry or an entry below the
benchmark, the failure to communicate did not result in an actionable grievance. The present
proceedings were instituted assailing the judgments of the High Court.

3. GIST OF ARGUMENTS OF PROSECUTION & COUNSEL

FOR APPELLANT

The Appellant was aggrieved by the fact that the entries in his APAR for two years were not
disclosed, as a result of which he was unable to submit a representation for promotion at the
particular time. The Appellant filled a writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad against
such action of the employer i.e. Respondent. The High Court of Allahabad held that in the
absence of an adverse entry or an entry below the benchmark, the failure to communicate the
grade in an APAR did not result in an actionable grievance. The Appellant preferred an appeal
against this judgment of the High Court of Allahabad.

The Case of the employee was that the entries in his Annual Performance Appraisal Report for
2010-11 and 2011-12 were not disclosed, as a result of which he was unable to submit a
representation at the material time. The writ petition, which he had filed before the Allahabad
High Court was dismissed on the ground that, absent an adverse entry or an entry below the
benchmark, the failure to communicate did not result in an actionable grievance.1
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, it was stated that following a circular
dated 18 March 2014, all public sector insurance companies have disclosed APARs since

1 https://inbaviewpoint.org/the-principle-of-no-work-no-pay/

8
appraisal year 2013-14. It has been submitted that in consequence, there was no necessity to
disclose the APARs to the appellant for the relevant years (2010-11 and 2011-12)

4.JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court bench Comprising of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Indira Banerjee
held that - :

“(i)Within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, the
respondent shall communicate to the appellant the uncommunicated entries in the APARs for the
years which were taken into account for the promotional exercise of 2014-15;

(ii) Within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the above, it would be open to the
appellant to submit his objections and representation to the respondent;

(iii) The representation shall be considered within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of the representation;

(iv) Thereafter, based on the result of the decision, the competent authority shall take a decision
on whether any modification in the decision for promotion from Scale III to Scale IV for 2014-
15 in respect of the appellant is warranted; and

(v) In order to ensure that this exercise is carried out fairly, we direct that the competent
authority shall ensure that the representation that is submitted by the appellant is placed before an
authority at a sufficiently senior level to obviate any bias or injustice.”

In the Present Case the SC held that all public servants are entitled to know their grades in an
annual performance appraisal report (APAR)
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in this Case reiterated that the entries in the Annual Appraisal
Report must be communicated to the public servant. It was observed in the case that the entries
in an employee’s Annual Appraisal Report were not disclosed to him, and as a result, he was
unable to file a representation at the material time. The bench then disposed of the appeal by
directing the authorities to consider the representation, if any, that may be submitted by the

9
employee in respect of the grading which was assigned to him for the relevant years which were
taken into consideration during the promotional exercise for 2014-15.  2

4. CONCLUSION

The bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Indira Banerjee noted that a three
judge bench of the Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh vs. Union of India 3has held that, every
entry in ACR of a public servant must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period.4
Further, the court directed that the decision in the former case was implemented in 2013-2014
did not mean it was prospective, and the case had a legitimate grievance that had to be taken care
of.
Therefore, the Supreme Court disposed of the case by directing the officials to consider the
representation.
The bench then disposed of the appeal by directing the authorities to consider the representation,
if any, that may be submitted by the employee in respect of the grading which was assigned to
him for the relevant years which were taken into consideration during the promotional exercise
for 2014-15.
The court said that, since this judgment is declaratory in nature, it cannot be contended that the
decision having been implemented from 2013-14, it has no application for the earlier years.

The bench said :"Admittedly, for one of the years under consideration (2011-12) for the
promotional exercise for 2014-15, the appellant was graded a "B", while for the
subsequent two years, he was graded an "A". Consequently, the fact that the appellant was given
a lower grading for 2011-12 would materially affect whether or not he should be promoted from
Scale III to Scale IV for the year in question.

The non-communication of the entries is, therefore, a matter in respect of which a legitimate
grievance can be made by the appellant, particularly having regard to the position in law laid

2 SCC 663
3 Sukhdev Singh vs. Union of India) 10 SCC 324 4 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11325
4 Sukhdev Singh vs. Union of India) 10 SCC 324 4 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11325

10
down in Dev Dutt and Sukhdev Singh "

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Employers Guide for Labour Laws by S. L. Dwivedi

Elements of Industrial Laws by N. D. kapoor

Labour and Industrial Laws by P. K. Padhi

Handbook of Labour and Industrial Law by P. L. Malik

Websites

www.scconline.com www.manupatrafast.com www.barandbench.com

www.livelaw.in www.lawoctopus.com www.blog.ipleaders.in
www.theindianlawyer.in https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?
g=59e828c4-af6a-4c1f-a5d6-
85702f72f7f9
https://inbaviewpoint.org/the-principle-of-no-work-no-pay/

11