Summary: Lalit C. Joshi fought a long court battle against the Bank of Baroda over an unfair promotion process. Even though he did well in different tests, he was denied a promotion because of a negative report he was never told about. The court ruled in his favor, giving him the promotions he deserved.
Lalit C. Joshi, a hardworking employee of Dena Bank since 1983, moved up in the company over the years. By 2012, he had reached a higher management level and was aiming for another promotion. The promotion process included tests, interviews, and reviews of his work performance.
In 2014, Lalit took part in the promotion process for a higher position. Even though he did well in the tests and interviews, his name was not on the final list of people getting promoted. Confused, Lalit used the Right to Information Act to find out why.
"The Bank had never informed him about the negative performance review for 2012."
After being denied the promotion, Lalit went to court. The Bombay High Court first dismissed his case, but the Supreme Court later ruled in his favor. The court found that the negative report from 2012, which Lalit was not told about, should not have affected the promotion decision.
"The committee must reconsider the case without the uncommunicated negative remarks."
Following the Supreme Court's order, the Bank of Baroda held a new interview, but this time Lalit got a much lower score. This seemed to go against the Supreme Court's decision, leading to more legal action.
The court found that Lalit was unfairly denied his promotion because of how the bank handled the interview process. It decided that Lalit should have been promoted to the higher position in 2015 and another level by 2018.
Lalit retired in February 2021. The court ordered the bank to pay him the salary and benefits for the positions he should have been promoted to from 2015 and 2018, along with interest. His retirement benefits were also to be recalculated based on the corrected positions.
"A serious injustice and clear inconvenience has been caused to the Petitioner."
This case shows the importance of clear communication in promotion processes and how the court can ensure fairness and justice in work-related issues.
