In Re: Small Industries Development Bank of India

This is an application for review of Judgment and order dated 13.10.2008 under Chapter 5 Rule 12 of the Rules of the Court read with Order 47 Rule 1.

Shri S.K. Kalia learned Senior Counsel while pressing for review of Judgment and order dated 13.10.2008 submits that the promotional policy dated 23.2.2001 has been later on modified by subsequent policy dated 6.10.2006. Accordingly direction issued by this Court to consider and decide the petitioner''s representation in terms of promotional policy dated 23.2.2001 is error apparent at the face of record. It has been stated that the promotional policy dated 23.2.2001 was withhold in the year 2002 and later on new policy was framed on 6.10.2006. Accordingly, the submission is, representation may not be decided in terms of promotional policy dated 23.2.2001.

On the other hand, Shri Sharad Dwivedi learned Counsel appeared for petitioner respondents submitted that the petitioner was eligible to be considered for promotion interms of promotional policy of the year 2001 in the year 2003 onwards. Accordingly, they were entitled to be considered for personal promotion in terms of old promotion policy. It has been submitted by the respondents counsel that in case applicants would have considered the petitioner''s case for personal promotion in terms of promotional policy dated 23.2.2001 Annexure-1 to the writ petition in the year 2003 itself or in the year 2004 then petitioner would have benefited substantially with regard to pay scales and perquisites. It has been also stated by the respondents that the promotional policy dated 6.10.2006 has got prospective application and petitioner is entitled to be benefited by old promotional policy.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner respondent further submitted that the argument contained in Para 9 of the counter affidavit has not been substantiated by any order passed by the authorities withholding the old policy. Mere assertion in the counter affidavit shall not make out a case to deny the operation of promotional policy dated 23.2.2008.

Shri S.K. kalia learned Senior Counsel could not drawn attention of this Court towards any material on record which may indicate that some decision was taken in the year 2002 for withholding of the old promotion policy. However, attention of this Court has been invited towards 117th meetings of the Board of Director held on 29.8.2006 where the Board of Director has withhold the policy. Accordingly an inference can be drawn that promotional policy dated 23.2.2001 was in vogue up to 29.8.2006. Merely reference of some decision without placing the material on record seems to be after thought.

However, Shri S.K. Kalia learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioners were eligible to be considered under old promotional scheme between the period commencing from 1.7.2004 to 1.4.2006. Even if the argument advanced by Shri S.K. Kalia is accepted it does not make out a case to deny the benefit of promotion to the petitioner under old scheme. On account of pendency of present review petition representation has not been considered and decided by the applicant respondent. However, two months time is allowed to decide the representation in terms of judgements of this Court.

Accordingly, we are of the view that entitlement accrue to the petitioner in terms of promotional policy dated 23.2.2001 can not be taken away by the new policy which seems to be prospective in nature. The impugned Judgment and order passed by this Court does not seem to suffer from any error apparent at the face of record.

Subject to above observation, application devoid of merit. Rejected.