Bombay HC Orders Bank To Consider Retired Employee For Deemed Promotion If Eligible For A Disability-Quota Post Available During Service

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Bank was required to identify posts for reservation for persons with disabilities before considering the petitioner’s promotion claim

The court held

The Court made the rule absolute and directed the Bank to complete identification of the relevant posts within two months, and thereafter consider the petitioner’s promotion claim within a further two months

It also directed

The Court did not determine the petitioner’s eligibility; it directed consideration of his claim and clarified that a deemed date of promotion may be granted if the specified conditions are met

The petitioner was granted liberty to pursue appropriate proceedings if his grievance remained unresolved; there was no order as to costs

01Facts

The petitioner, an employee of the respondent Bank and a person with a disability, sought consideration for promotion to Deputy General Manager, TEGS-VI and General Manager, TEGS-II, including promotion from an earlier date

p. 3

During the petition, he superannuated on 31 March 2024

p. 3

In August 2023, the Bank had stated that it was identifying posts in Group B and the lowest rung of Group A for reservation; that identification remained incomplete when the matter was heard

p. 3

The Court considered the petitioner’s claim in light of the Supreme Court’s decisions on reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities

pp. 1-2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Bank was required to identify posts for reservation for persons with disabilities before considering the petitioner’s promotion claim

pp. 3-4

ii.2. Whether, despite his superannuation, the petitioner could be considered for promotion with a deemed date if an eligible post was available and could have been reserved while he was in service

p. 4

03Law Applied

Sections 32 and 33 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 concern identification of posts and reservation in employment; Section 34 was also considered in relation to reservation for persons with disabilities

pp. 1-2, 4

Relying on Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka & Ors., National Federation of the Blind v. Sanjay Kothari, and Rajiv Kumar Gupta v. Union of India, the Court noted that reservation for persons with disabilities applies to promotion, subject to identification of posts to which the reservation can be applied

pp. 1-2

The employer is responsible for identifying the relevant posts

p. 4

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Section 32 Section 33 Section 34

04Reasoning

The Bank had not completed the post-identification process despite the direction issued in 2023

p. 3

Since identification was necessary to implement the statutory reservation and the Bank accepted the governing legal position, the Court directed it to identify posts available for reservation at the time the petitioner was eligible

pp. 3-4

If a suitable post was available while the petitioner remained in service and could have been reserved for a person with a disability, the Bank was to assess his suitability as of that time and, if successful, grant promotion with a deemed date, in accordance with the Bank’s applicable recruitment rules

p. 4

05Holding

p. 4

The Court did not determine the petitioner’s eligibility; it directed consideration of his claim and clarified that a deemed date of promotion may be granted if the specified conditions are met

p. 4

The petitioner was granted liberty to pursue appropriate proceedings if his grievance remained unresolved; there was no order as to costs

p. 5

LawLens.Bombay High Court

Original Court PDF