# Ajay Kumar Sinha v. The Life Insurance Corporation of India and another

- **Citation:** (2003) 1 ILRA 222
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-02-25
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1745 of 2002
- **Bench:** M. Katju, Prakash Krishna
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ajay-kumar-sinha-v-the-life-insurance-corporation-of-india-and-another-39975
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India- Article 226 Service
Law- Promotion on the Post of Asstt.
Branch Manager- for 2001-2002 78 posts
vacancy notified merit list prepared, out
of
78
only
41
Candidates
joined-
remaining post lying unfilled- petitioner
below in merit list- claimed promotion
against existing vacancy- No minimum
marks
prescribed-
held
entitled
for
promotion- remaining posts are to be
fulfill
from
the
merit
list
already
prepared.

Held Para 2

The claim of the respondent that the
contingency list was required to be only
of 15 percent of the vacancies is in our
opinion without any justification. In fact
the entire remaining list is in the nature
of a waiting list of candidates who are
entitled for promotion against unfilled
vacancies. Reliance is placed by the
learned counsel for the petitioner upon
the decision of this Court in State of U.P.
vs. Ravindra Nath Rai 1999(1) LBSER
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] Ajay Kumar Sinha V. The Life Insurance Corporation of India and another 223
949 (Special Appeal 313 of 98 decided on
3.2.99). In this decision the stand of the
State was that there is no provision for
preparing a waiting list and therefore
unfilled vacancies cannot be filled up.
The contention was rejected by this
Court and it was held that the remaining
merit list was to be treated as the
waiting list and unfilled vacancies were
required to be filled up. The said
principle of law is fully applicable in the
instant case also. We are informed that
the SLP against this judgment has also
been rejected.
Case Law discussed:
1999 (1) LBSER 949

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
222 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
owner or driver of vehicle has not been
identified. The claimant, or dependent of
claimant is often handicapped in persuing
the remedy. It will, therefore, be unjust
and unfair where a claim, which is prima
facie found to be valid for consideration,
be dismissed for default and thereafter
remedy of restoration, or restoration of
restoration be dismissed on technical
grounds. Even a police report has to be
treated as an application, and that every
application filed must be inquired into and
decided by the Tribunal. In case no
evidence is forthcoming, the Tribunal
may dismiss the claim but that it cannot
dismiss the claim for default and that
where it has been so dismissed, the claim
petition may be treated to have been filed
on the date when such an application is
made as there is no provision of limitation
after deletion of sub sec. (3) of Section
168 of Motor Vehicles (amendment) Act,
1988 (Act No. 59 of 1988). The decision
in Nanhi Bai's case (supra) was under the
old Act and is thus not applicable to the
facts of the present case.

11. Coming to the facts of the case,
the petitioner has given reasons for
absence on 18.8.2000 that he could not
attend the hearing on account of heavy
rains. These reasons have been found to
be sufficient to recall the order. The
discretion has rightly been exercised and
thus no interference is required to be
made with the impugned order.

The writ petition is, accordingly,
dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.2.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1745 of 2002

Ajay Kumar Sinha

...Petitioner
Versus
The Life Insurance Corporation of India
and another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Suresh Singh
Sri Sanjay Sharma
Sri Ashok Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri R.G. Padia
Sri P. Padia

Constitution of India- Article 226 Service
Law- Promotion on the Post of Asstt.
Branch Manager- for 2001-2002 78 posts
vacancy notified merit list prepared, out
of
78
only
41
Candidates
joined-
remaining post lying unfilled- petitioner
below in merit list- claimed promotion
against existing vacancy- No minimum
marks
prescribed-
held
entitled
for
promotion- remaining posts are to be
fulfill
from
the
merit
list
already
prepared.

Held Para 2

The claim of the respondent that the
contingency list was required to be only
of 15 percent of the vacancies is in our
opinion without any justification. In fact
the entire remaining list is in the nature
of a waiting list of candidates who are
entitled for promotion against unfilled
vacancies. Reliance is placed by the
learned counsel for the petitioner upon
the decision of this Court in State of U.P.
vs. Ravindra Nath Rai 1999(1) LBSER
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] Ajay Kumar Sinha V. The Life Insurance Corporation of India and another 223
949 (Special Appeal 313 of 98 decided on
3.2.99). In this decision the stand of the
State was that there is no provision for
preparing a waiting list and therefore
unfilled vacancies cannot be filled up.
The contention was rejected by this
Court and it was held that the remaining
merit list was to be treated as the
waiting list and unfilled vacancies were
required to be filled up. The said
principle of law is fully applicable in the
instant case also. We are informed that
the SLP against this judgment has also
been rejected.
Case Law discussed:
1999 (1) LBSER 949

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
for a mandamus directing the respondents
to declare the waiting list in order of merit
pertaining to the selection for promotion
to the cadre of Assistant Branch Manager
(Sales) for the year 2001-2002 in the
service of the L.I.C. and to promote the
petitioner to the post of Assistant Branch
Manager (Sales).

Counter and rejoinder affidavits have
been filed and we have perused the same
and heard the learned counsel for the
parties.

2. The petitioner is a Development
Officer in the service of the respondent
Corporation. He is aggrieved against the
non-grant of promotion to him to the post
of Assistant Branch Manager (Sales). The
respondent Corporation identified 78
posts of Assistant Branch Manager
(Sales) to be filled up during the year
2001-2002
by
promotion.
Selection
proceeding were initiated on 27.3.2001 in
which the petitioner also participated and
after the selection proceedings a select list
was published comprising of 78 names as
against the 78 posts of Assistant Branch
Manager (Sales) on 8.1.2002. In this list
the petitioner's name was not included.
Out of 78 selected candidates only 41
candidates joined on the post of Assistant
Branch
Manager
(Sales)
while
37
incumbents declined to join the post
despite their promotion. According to the
case of the petitioner, these 37 posts ought
to have been filled up by granting
promotion to the persons who were lower
in the merit list. According to the counter
affidavit
the
respondents
had
also
prepared a contingency list comprising of
15 Development Officers who were
promoted as Assistant Branch Manager
(Sales). The remaining 22 vacancies
continue to be vacant. Against one of the
vacancies the petitioner claims that he is
entitled to be promoted. On the basis of
selection a merit list was prepared in
which the name of the petitioner find
place but at a lower placement than the
first 78. In the counter affidavit there is no
mention about any minimum qualifying
marks for the selection on the aforesaid
post. In our opinion in absence of any
minimum qualifying marks having been
fixed up the remaining vacancies are
required to be filled up from the persons
who are lower in the select list. The claim
of the respondent that the contingency list
was required to be only of 15 percent of
the vacancies is in our opinion without
any justification. In fact the entire
remaining list is in the nature of a waiting
list of candidates who are entitled for
promotion against unfilled vacancies.
Reliance is placed by the learned counsel
for the petitioner upon the decision of this
Court in State of U.P. vs. Ravindra Nath
Rai 1999(1) LBSER 949 (Special Appeal
313 of 98 decided on 3.2.99). In this
decision the stand of the State was that
there is no provision for preparing a
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
224 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
waiting
list
and
therefore
unfilled
vacancies cannot be filled up. The
contention was rejected by this Court and
it was held that the remaining merit list
was to be treated as the waiting list and
unfilled vacancies were required to be
filled up. The said principle of law is fully
applicable in the instant case also. We are
informed that the SLP against this
judgment has also been rejected.

3. In view of the above this writ
petition is allowed. A mandamus is issued
to the respondents to promote the
petitioner in the cadre of Assistant Branch
Manager (Sales) for the year 2001-2002
forthwith.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.2.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA, J.

Income Tax Appeal No. 39 of 2001

Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra

 ...Appellant
Versus
M/s Hind Lamps Ltd. Shikohabad (U.P.)

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Shambhu Chopra
I.T. Standing Counsel

Counsel for the Respondent:

Income Tax Act 1965- Section 37-
Business Expenditure those expenditure
which are although not permissible in
the eye of law- but can be allowed as
busiigness expenditure.

Held- Para 6

It may be mentioned here that even if
the amount is not legally due yet it can
be allowed as a business expenditure
U/s 7 of the Act, if it is made for
commercial expediency. A businessman
has to incur many expenditures which
are not due under any legal obligation
but to facilitate the business and for
commercial
expediency
vide
M/s
Shahzadanand
Vs.
Commissioner
of
Income Tax 21977 UPTC 48 (SC). Hence
these expenditures made for commercial
expediency
even
without
any
legal
obligation are allowable as business
expenditures under section 37.
Case law discussed:
(1991) 190 ITR 455
111 Taxman-81 cal. 111

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. This appeal under section 260-A
of the Income Tax Act has been filed
against the impugned order of the Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 18-12-2000
vide annexure-3 to the Appeal.

The main point pressed by the
learned counsel for the department is that
the amount of Rs.9,82,426/- was wrongly
allowed by the Tribunal under section 36
(i) and (ii) or Section 37 (i) of the Income
Tax Act. This question has been discussed
in paragraph 5 of the impugned order of
the Tribunal. It appears that in the year
1978 the workers of the assessee went on
strike and the factory was closed for
almost a month. When finally the Chief
Minister of Uttar Pradesh intervened, an
agreement was reached, whereby certain
amount was to be paid over and above the
statutory bonus. Thereafter every year the
workmen
demanded
twenty
percent
bonus, which was the maximum limit
under the provisions of Payment of Bonus
Act, 1965. Thereafter, also the assessee
was paying to the workmen bonus above