Supreme Court Orders Transfer of Writ Petition in Promotion Dispute: Pankaj Prakash vs. United India Insurance Company (22 March 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 22 March 2022

Citation: Civil Appeal No 2213 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No 17024 of 2019)

Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Surya Kant, Bela M Trivedi

Can a court transfer a case to ensure a comprehensive hearing when related matters are pending in different High Courts? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the non-promotion of an employee. The core issue revolves around the employee’s claim for promotion and the need for a consolidated hearing of related grievances. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justice Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice Surya Kant, and Justice Bela M Trivedi.

Case Background

The appellant, Pankaj Prakash, was employed as a Deputy Manager in Scale III at United India Insurance Company Limited. He sought promotion to the position of Manager in Scale IV for the years 2015 and 2016. Previously, his claim for non-promotion in 2014 was dismissed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, on 6 October 2016, and a subsequent review petition was dismissed on 17 January 2017. This earlier matter reached the Supreme Court, which, on 10 July 2019, directed the insurance company to reconsider the appellant’s case for 2014, due to non-communication of Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs). Following the Supreme Court’s order, the appellant’s representation was not accepted, leading to a new writ petition before the Delhi High Court. The current appeal concerns the appellant’s non-promotion for 2015 and 2016.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant initially filed a writ petition before the Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, challenging his non-promotion for 2015 and 2016. The High Court dismissed this petition, noting that the appellant’s challenge to his non-promotion for 2014 had been rejected and had attained finality. However, the Supreme Court had already addressed the 2014 issue, directing a reconsideration. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court’s observation that the appellant did not challenge the earlier order was erroneous. The Supreme Court observed that since the matter relating to 2014 was pending before the Delhi High Court, it would be appropriate that the matter relating to 2015 and 2016 also be heard by the Delhi High Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily deals with the procedural aspects of transferring a case for a consolidated hearing. The Supreme Court’s previous judgment in the matter, which relied on Dev Dutt vs Union of India [(2008) 8 SCC 725] and Sukhdev Singh vs Union of India [(2013) 9 SCC 566], established the importance of communicating APARs to employees. The promotion policy of 2006 considers (i) written test; (ii) work record; (iii) seniority; and (iv) interview for promotion from Scale III to Scale IV. The APARs, which reflect the work record, are a significant factor in the promotion process.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that his non-promotion for 2015 and 2016 was linked to the issues surrounding his non-promotion for 2014.
• He contended that the non-communication of APARs had affected his chances of promotion.
• The appellant highlighted that the Supreme Court had already directed a reconsideration of his 2014 case, which was now pending before the Delhi High Court.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The respondent argued that the High Court had correctly dismissed the appellant’s petition for 2015 and 2016.
• They contended that the issue of non-promotion for 2014 had attained finality.
• The respondent had not addressed the fact that the Supreme Court had already directed a reconsideration of the 2014 issue.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument was innovative in pointing out the overlap between the 2014 issue and the 2015-2016 issues, and that the Supreme Court had already directed a reconsideration of the 2014 issue, which was not taken into consideration by the High Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in the traditional sense. However, the core issue was:

• Whether the writ petition regarding non-promotion for 2015 and 2016 should be transferred to the Delhi High Court to be heard with the related pending petition concerning the non-promotion for 2014.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

• Dev Dutt vs Union of India [(2008) 8 SCC 725] – Supreme Court of India: This case established the principle that non-communication of APARs is detrimental to the employee’s right to be considered for promotion.
• Sukhdev Singh vs Union of India [(2013) 9 SCC 566] – Supreme Court of India: This case reiterated the importance of communicating APARs to employees, reinforcing the principle laid down in Dev Dutt.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on Dev Dutt vs Union of India [(2008) 8 SCC 725] and Sukhdev Singh vs Union of India [(2013) 9 SCC 566] to emphasize the importance of communicating APARs to employees and to ensure a fair promotion process.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with ensuring a fair and comprehensive hearing of the appellant’s grievances. The court noted the overlap between the non-promotion for 2014 and the subsequent years, and that the High Court had erroneously stated that the issue of non-promotion for 2014 had attained finality. The Court’s decision was influenced by the need to avoid conflicting judgments and to ensure that all related issues were considered together. The Court also emphasized the importance of APARs in the promotion process, as previously established in Dev Dutt vs Union of India [(2008) 8 SCC 725] and Sukhdev Singh vs Union of India [(2013) 9 SCC 566].

Logical Reasoning:

The Court’s decision was based on the need for a comprehensive hearing, the interconnectedness of the issues, and the importance of APARs in the promotion process. The Court also took note of the erroneous observation of the High Court that the issue of non-promotion for 2014 had attained finality, which was not the case because of the Supreme Court’s previous order.

The Supreme Court stated, “The fate of the grievance of the appellant for 2014 on the one hand and for 2015 and 2016 on the other hand cannot be considered in isolation since there would be a degree of overlap.”

The Court also noted, “The High Court, in the course of its impugned judgment adverted to the outcome of the proceedings for the previous year in paragraph 24 of the judgment… This is evidently erroneous for the reason that the judgment of the High Court for 2014, became the subject matter of the decision of this Court dated 10 July 2019.”

The Supreme Court further stated, “Since the APARs which reflect the work record constitute a reckonable parameter in the overall exercise of promotion, and since the grievance of the appellant pertaining to the year 2014, following the earlier decision of this Court is now pending before the Delhi High Court, it would be appropriate that both the writ petitions which were filed before the Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad as well as the petition before the Delhi High Court are considered together and disposed of finally.”

Key Takeaways

• When multiple cases are related, they should be heard together to ensure a comprehensive and fair outcome.
• The non-communication of APARs can be a significant factor in promotion disputes.
• The Supreme Court can transfer cases to ensure that all related issues are considered together.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• The transfer of the writ petition from the Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad to the Delhi High Court.
• The writ petition so transferred to be heard and decided together with the writ petition pending in the Delhi High Court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when there are multiple cases pending in different High Courts relating to the same subject matter, the Supreme Court can transfer a case to another High Court to be heard together to ensure a comprehensive and fair outcome. This case reinforces the importance of APARs in promotion cases and the need for a consolidated hearing when issues are interconnected. There is no change in the previous positions of law. The judgment emphasizes the procedural aspect of transferring a case for a consolidated hearing.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to transfer the writ petition from the Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad to the Delhi High Court ensures that the appellant’s grievances regarding his non-promotion are heard comprehensively. By ordering a consolidated hearing, the Court aims to avoid conflicting judgments and ensure a fair outcome for the appellant. The judgment also reinforces the importance of communicating APARs to employees and the need for a fair promotion process.