In a significant judgment, the Gujarat High Court has ruled that employees are entitled to be immediately informed about orders or communications that may jeopardize their careers or service benefits. The court emphasized that such prompt notification is necessary to allow employees to take appropriate legal recourse if needed.
The division bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Mauna M. Bhatt delivered this verdict while allowing a Letters Patent Appeal filed by Babubhai Jethabhai Patel against the Registrar General of the Gujarat High Court and others (C/LPA/213/2023).
Background of the Case:
Babubhai Jethabhai Patel joined service as an English Stenographer Grade-II in 1978 and was later promoted to English Stenographer Grade-I in 1998. He became eligible for promotion to the post of Principal Private Secretary (Class-I) on May 12, 2013, but retired on July 31, 2013, without receiving the promotion. In October 2017, he learned that he had been denied the promotion due to alleged adverse remarks in his confidential report for 2012-2013 and an “average” merit-cum-efficiency report for the previous five years.
Key Legal Issues:
1. Whether the appellant was properly communicated about the adverse remarks in his confidential report.
2. The validity of using uncommunicated adverse remarks to deny promotion.
3. The delay in communicating the reasons for denying promotion.
Court’s Decision:
The High Court allowed the appeal, quashing the earlier single judge order and directing the respondent authorities to grant ex post facto promotion to the appellant as Principal Private Secretary (Class-I) from the date of his eligibility.
Important Observations:
The court made several critical observations:
1. On communication of adverse remarks:
“We are convinced that the appellant has been arbitrarily and illegally denied his appointment/up-gradation/promotion to the post of Principal Private Secretary, Class-I.”
2. On the delay in communication:
“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.”
3. On employees’ right to information:
“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.”
4. On the respondents’ approach:
“The approach of the respondents in handling the entire issue right from the recording of the entries in the confidential reports to its communication, appears to be casual and lackadaisical.”
The court also noted that the confidential reports were recorded in a perfunctory manner and were not in line with administrative instructions.
Also Read
Lawyers and Parties:
– Appellant: Babubhai Jethabhai Patel, represented by Mr. Vaibhav A. Vyas
– Respondents: Registrar General & Others, represented by Mr. Hamesh C. Naidu
Case Number: C/LPA/213/2023
