Facts
The respondent, an Assistant Manager (Finance), was promoted to Manager (Finance) in 2022 but declined the promotion because the proposed posting was at Delhi; consequently, she was debarred from promotion for two years.
Source reference: para. 8In 2024, she was again promoted and offered posting at Khajuraho, which she again declined, citing her son’s heart ailment and the need to access appropriate medical facilities.
Source reference: para. 8The respondent had been posted at Raja Bhoj International Airport, Bhopal, since 2006.
Source reference: no citationShe filed W.P. No. 630/2025, which was allowed on 16 October 2025, with a direction to the appellant to consider her posting to Bhopal or another place having advanced medical facilities for her son.
Source reference: para. 7The Airport Authority of India filed the present writ appeal with a delay of 121 days and sought condonation of delay.
Source reference: paras. 1–3During the appeal, the appellant stated that the respondent’s debarment period would expire on 5 September 2026 and that, if selected for promotion in the next DPC, she could be posted at a suitable place other than Bhopal with adequate medical facilities.
Source reference: para. 9The respondent agreed to join the promotional post, subject to being posted at a place with adequate medical facilities.
Source reference: para. 10Issues
Whether the delay of 121 days in filing the writ appeal ought to be condoned on the ground of sufficient and bona fide cause.
Source reference: paras. 1–5Whether the Single Judge’s direction requiring consideration of the respondent’s posting at Bhopal or another medically suitable place should be sustained, modified, or set aside in light of the parties’ undertakings and the respondent’s promotion prospects.
Source reference: paras. 7–12Whether the respondent, if found suitable for promotion in the next DPC, should be posted at a place other than Bhopal having adequate medical facilities for her son.
Source reference: para. 12Law Applied
The Court applied the principle that delay may be condoned where the applicant establishes “sufficient cause” and the explanation is bona fide, while emphasising that governmental or institutional litigants should disclose the decision-making process and the time taken at each stage; in this regard, it relied on Motilal Songara v. Prem Prakash alias Pappu, (2013) 9 SCC 199, Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) through Legal Representatives v. Union of India, (2023) 10 SCC 531, and Vishnu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1501.
Source reference: para. 3The Court further applied the principle that service-related promotion and transfer decisions remain subject to the applicable service policy and administrative assessment, while relevant humanitarian and medical circumstances may be considered by the employer.
Source reference: paras. 8–12Reasoning
The Court accepted that the appeal involved questions concerning the AAI’s transfer policy, promotion-cum-transfer orders, refusal of promotion, and the resulting service consequences; the matter had consequently been examined by officers at the airport, regional headquarters, and corporate headquarters, causing the delay.
Source reference: paras. 2–3Although the delay was 121 days, the Court found the explanation sufficient and bona fide, but imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000 and directed the appellant to provide date-wise details of its decision-making process in future cases.
Source reference: para. 5On the merits, the Court considered that the respondent had remained posted at Bhopal for approximately 20 years and that she should now take promotion and serve at a promotional posting.
Source reference: para. 12At the same time, recognising the respondent’s son’s medical condition and the parties’ consensus, the Court directed that, if she was found suitable for promotion in the next DPC, the appellant should post her at a suitable place other than Bhopal where adequate medical facilities were available.
Source reference: paras. 9–12Holding
The application for condonation of the 121-day delay was allowed, subject to payment of Rs. 5,000 as costs to the respondent within 15 days.
The impugned order dated 16 October 2025 in W.P. No. 630/2025 was set aside.
Source reference: para. 13The writ appeal was disposed of with the direction that, if the respondent was found suitable for promotion in the next DPC, the appellant should post her at a suitable place other than Bhopal having adequate medical facilities for her son, while permitting her to perform duties on the promotional post.
Source reference: para. 13Original Court PDF
Airport Authority Of IndiavsSmt Gayatri Soni
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
