FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS. versus PARASHOTAM DAS BANSAL & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 2 S.C.R. 412 · Decided: 05-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2008] 2 S.C.R. 412 
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS. 
v. 
PARASHOTAM DAS BANSAL & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 991 of 2008) 
FEBRUARY 5, 2008 
[S.B. SINHA AND G.S. SINGHVI, JJ.] 
Service law -
Promotion - No avenue for certain 
categories of employees appointed with a statutory body -
c Recommendations of Pay Commission- Non-implementation 
- Challenge to - Writ petition allowed by High Court - During 
pendency, scheme framed for promotion to selection grade 
and some employees obtained benefit thereunder- On appeal 
held: Employee has a right to be considered for promotion 
D and not a fundamental right of promotion - It is within the realm 
of the statutory authority that how the employees would be 
structured but by reason thereof, it cannot tinker with their 
essential fundamental right- Introduction of grant of selection 
grade did not provide for a promotional scheme - It was 
E available to a limited number of employees - More so benefit 
of promotion was available to unionised employees - Thus, 
order of High Court upheld - Food Corporation of India, 1964. 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 16 and 226 -
· Promotion - No avenues, resulting in stagnation - Interference 
F by court - Held: Court has jurisdiction to issue necessary 
direction to frame a Scheme.· 
The respondents were appointed in the engineering 
section of the appellant-Food Corporation of India. They 
· were stagnant for past 30 years as there was no 
G promotional avenue for them. Several other categories of 
employees filed applications for formulation .of suitable 
schemes of organizational structure. The Fifth Pay 
Commission made recommendation but the same were 
not implemented. Some of the employees filed writ petition. 
H 
412 
+ 
, 
I 
A 
' 
;. 
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS. v. 
413 
PARASHOTAM DAS BANSAL & ORS. 
It was also contended that the scheme had already been 
A 
introduced for medical officers working in appella(lt's 
.. 
organization. During pendency of the writ petition, 
scheme was framed for promotion to selection grade and 
some of the respondents obtained benefits. The Single 
Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition. The B 
Division Bench upheld the order. Hence the present 
-. 
appeal. 
.. 
· Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Appellant is a 'State' within the meaning c 
of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. An employee of a 
State although has no fundamental right of promotion, it 
has a right to be considered therefor. What is necessary 
is to provide an opportunity of advancement; promotion 
being a normal incidence of service. [Para 9) [418-C-D] 
D 
Dr. Ms. O.Z. Hussain v. Union of India 1990 Supp. SCC 
688; Mis. Ujagar Prints etc. etc. -v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 
1989 SC 972; Council of Scientific and Industrial Research 
and Anr. v. K. G. S. Bhatt and Anr. 1989 (4) SCC 635 - referred 
to. 
E 
1.2 When employees are denied an opportunity of 
promotion for long years (in the instant case 30 years) -on 
the ground that he fell within a category of employees 
excluded from promotional prospect, the Superior Court 
F 
will have the jurisdiction to issue necessary direction. If 
there is no channel of promotion in respect of a particular 
group of officers resulting in stagnation over the years, 
the Court although may not issue any direction as tO in 
which manner a scheme should be formulatec;J- or_ by 
· reason thereof interfere with the operation of existing G 
channel of promotion to the officers working in different 
""" 
departments and officers of the Government but 'th.e -· 
jurisdiction to issue direction to make a scheme cannot 
be denied to a Superior Court of the country. [Paras 12 
and 13) [419-G-H; 420-A-B] 
H 
414 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
State of Tripua & Ors. v. K.K. Roy 2004 (9) SCC 65 -
referred to. 
1.3 Respondents constituted 1 % of the total work 
force. A huge financial benefit was given to unionised 
8 employees constituting 85 % strength of the total work 
force by giving career progression scheme as well as the 
selection grade. It is really of some significance that the 
promotional avenues alleged to be existed for the cadre 
of Assistant Engineers were not taken before the Single 
Judge of High Court. A ground was taken in the 
C Memorandum of the Letters Patent Appeal. Even the same 
does not appear to have been pressed. No affidavit has 
ever been filed by the appellant making averments of the 
said fact. The submission that t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.