Jharkhand High Court
Sashi Bhusan Prakash vs Coal India Limited Through Its ... on 12 September, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:28071
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S). No. 4411 of 2017
----------
Sashi Bhusan Prakash, s/o. Sri Mohan Ram, r/o. House No. C-9, Nichitpur, township, P.O. Bansjora, P.S. East Basuriya, District Dhanbad. .......... Petitioner Versus
1. Coal India Limited through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, having its office at 10, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata, P.O. and P.S. Netaji Subhash Road, District Kolkata (West Bengal).
2. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited, having its office at 10, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata, P.O. and P.S. Netaji Subhash Road, District Kolkata (West Bengal).
3. General Manager (Personnel), Coal India Limited, having its office at 10, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata, P.O. and P.S. Netaji Subhash Road, District Kolkata (West Bengal).
4. Director (Personnel), Coal India Limited, having its office at 10, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata, P.O. and P.S. Netaji Subhash Road, District Kolkata (West Bengal).
5. Head of Department (EE), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Koyla Bhawan, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. and District Dhanbad.
6. Assistant Manager (R/ADMN), Sijua Area, BCCL, Sijua, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. and District Dhanbad. .......... Respondents.
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-----------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate
Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate
----------
C.A.V. on 01/07/2025 Pronounced on 12/09/2025
The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for a direction upon the 3rd respondent whereby although the petitioner was promoted from E-3 to E-4 grade with retrospective effect from 30.09.2014 but the financial benefits were directed to be extended to him from the date of his joining i.e. taking charge of the promoted post.
Petitioner has further prayed for extending the financial benefits of the promoted post from the date 30.09.2014; the date which was taken as date of promotion but not from the date when he actually assumed the charge of the promoted post.
12025:JHHC:28071
2. Briefly state, the petitioner was initially appointed on MT (E&M) in the year 2009 and joined Coal India Ltd. on 04.09.2009. Thereafter, on being promoted, the petitioner was posted in E-3 grade as Assistant Manager (E&M) and was posted at Nichitpur Colliery, Sijua Area, BCCL on 09.06.2017. During his posting at Nichitpur Colliery, the petitioner was also given an additional charge of CHP at Seadra Bansjora Siding.
3. While the petitioner was posted at Nichitpur Colliery, a raid was conducted by CBI, Dhanbad on 23.08.2013 in CHP at Seadra Bansjora Siding on the basis of a complaint regarding false payment of bills to one M/s. Sanjay Udyoug which was engaged for crushing of coal. After the investigation was done by the CBI, it referred the entire case including their investigation report to CVO, BCCL on 30.04.2014 for further necessary action. Though after enquiry, no FIR was registered at any police station implicating the petitioner in any case in relation to the said incident.
4. It further appears that vide office order No. CIL/C-54(CC)/Prom.E3- E4/E & M/061/85 dated 30.09.2014 all similarly situated persons who were posted at E-3 grade were promoted to E-4 grade and a list of all the promoted employees was also issued by the Department under the signature of Respondent No. 2, but the Petitioner was not promoted to the post of Deputy Manager due to non-receipt of clearance from Vigilance Department.
5. The Petitioner was issued Charge Memorandum vide no. BCCL/VIG/CB-11-14/2015/1026 dated 06.10.2015 for committing acts of misconduct and thereafter, he was imposed the penalty of "Reduction by two stages for a period of one year without cumulative effect" vide letter no.-BCCL/VIG/CB-11-2014/order/2017/465 dated 25.05.2017 for the period 25.05.2017 to 24.05.2018. The Order of penalty was implemented in the month of June-2018 & a sum of Rs. 54763/-was deducted from his salary.
6. The Petitioner was thereafter promoted in E-4 grade vide letter no. CIL/C-5A(CC)/E3-E-4/44 dated 09.06.2017 (Annexure-6) with notional seniority from 30.09.2014, which was not implemented at BCCL, as the Petitioner was under currency of penalty. After completion of penalty 2 2025:JHHC:28071 currency period, promotion confirmation order was issued from BCCL vide no.-EE/E&M/PROM/2019/3906-20(H) dated 16.12.2019 with notional seniority with effect from 30.09.2014. Considering the notional seniority in E-4 Grade provided to the Petitioner w. e. f. 30.09.2014, petitioner was promoted to the post of Manager, in E-5 grade vide order no.-176-195(H) dated 21.01.2020.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no any enquiry or FIR registered at any Police Station in any case and further no departmental proceeding was ever initiated against the petitioner and only on the ground of vigilance clearance his case was not considered for promotion and the same was considered after much delay and persuasion with retrospective effect from 30.09.2014 but the financial benefits was given to him from the date he has assumed the charge.
Learned counsel further submits that the respondents have relied upon an office memorandum dated 19/27 June, 1979, wherein at Clause-(a) it has been stipulated that all orders for promotion will be issued only after vigilance clearance.
8. He further submits that the similar issue came for consideration before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mrs. Kiran vs. Coal India Ltd. & Ors., decided on 17.12.2002 and in the said case it was held that merely on the basis of vigilance clearance promotion cannot be denied to any delinquent. He relied upon several paragraphs of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench especially para-21, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench has quashed the impugned order whereby the retrospective promotion was given notionally and the monetary benefits were denied.
9. Learned counsel further contended that a similar issue cropped-up before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Kerela & Ors. Vs. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai1 and the Hon'ble Court has observed that principle of 'no work no pay' cannot be accepted as a rule of thumb and when the petitioner was promoted from retrospective effect but not given financial benefits that was incorrect on the part of the respondents and finally, the 1 (2007) 6 SCC 524 3 2025:JHHC:28071 Hon'ble Apex Court has quashed the impugned order and granted monetary benefit from the date when the petitioner was promoted retrospectively.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that there is no error in the action of the respondents and further relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Government of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors.2 especially paragraphs 18 to 20. He contended that it is well settled principle that promotion becomes effective from the date is granted and further contended that in the instant case, the facts are entirely different what was in the case of State of Kerala & Ors. Vs. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai (supra) or the order passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court.
11. He contended that it was not a simple case of vigilance clearance, rather; in the instant case there was a raid by CBI on the basis of complaint. The petitioner was also issued a charge memo and penalty was imposed upon him; as such, none of the judgments which have been relied upon by the petitioner is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record and the averments made in the respective affidavits it appears that Petitioner was appointed as Officer (E&M) in E-1 Grade vide letter No.- CIL/C5A(i)/50297/MT/2009/286 dated 03.09.2009 & joined CIL on 04th September 2009. Subsequently, he was regularized as Sr. Officer (E&M) in E-2 Grade vide letter CIL/C5A(i)/50297/closure/861 26.07.2011 with effect from 04.09.2010. The Petitioner was re-designated as Assistant Manager vide letter no. 1886(A) dated 14.07.2012 with effect from 04.09.2010. During posting of the Petitioner (additional charge) at Sendra Bansjora Siding CHP, a raid was conducted by CBI, Dhanbad on 23.08.2013 on the basis of complaint filed by someone regarding false payment of bills to M/S Sanjay Udyog engaged for crushing of coal received directly from mines before loading into rail rakes.
13. It further appears that batch mates of the Petitioner were promoted to E-4 grade vide Order No. 85 dated 30.09.2014 (Annexure-1) considering the cut-off date 30.09.2013, but the Petitioner was not promoted to the post 2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3512 4 2025:JHHC:28071 of Deputy Manager due to non-receipt of clearance from Vigilance Department.
It is also evident that the Petitioner was issued Charge Memorandum vide no. BCCL/VIG/CB-11-14/2015/1026 dated 06.10.2015 for committing acts of misconduct and was imposed penalty of "Reduction by two stages for a period of one year without cumulative effect" vide letter no.- BCCL/VIG/CB-11-2014/order/2017/465 dated 25.05.2017 for the period 25.05.2017 to 24.05.2018.
The Order of penalty was implemented in the month of June-2018 & a sum of Rs. 54763/-was deducted from his salary. The Petitioner was thereafter promoted in E-4 grade vide letter no. CIL/C-5A(CC)/E3-E-4/44 dated 09.06.2017 (Annexure-6) with notional seniority from 30.09.2014, which was not implemented at BCCL, as the Petitioner was under currency period of penalty. After completion of penalty currency period, promotion confirmation order was issued from BCCL vide по-
EE/E&M/PROM/2019/3906-20(H) dated 16.12.2019 with notional seniority with effect from 30.09.2014.
Considering the notional seniority in E-4 Grade provided to the Petitioner w.e.f. 30.09.2014, petitioner was promoted to the post of Manager, in E-5 grade vide order no.-176-195(H) dated 21.01.2020.
14. Thus, it is evident that petitioner was immediately promoted to E-4 grade (Annexure-6) with notional seniority from 30.09.2014 after completion of penalty currency period and promotion confirmation order was issued on 16.12.2019.
At this stage it is also pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has never challenged the penalty order and he was promoted to E-4 grade on 09.06.2017 with notional seniority.
15. The grievance of the petitioner is in the teeth of the judgment rendered in the case of Government of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with similar provisions of West Bengal Service Rules, has held as under:
18. Upon a bare perusal of Rule 54(1)(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules, it is clear that promotion cannot be retrospectively granted after retirement, as it requires the actual assumption of duties and responsibilities of the promotional post. In the present case, 5 2025:JHHC:28071 since respondent No. 1 superannuated before the final approval of his promotion, he could not have formally assume the charge of the promotional post of Chief Scientific Officer.
Therefore, although respondent No. 1 was recommended for promotion, Rule 54(1)(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules precludes him from getting the financial benefits of the promotional post without having taken on the responsibilities of the said post i.e. Chief Scientific Officer.
19. It is a well settled principle that promotion becomes effective from the date it is granted, rather than from the date a vacancy arises or the post is created. While the Courts have recognized the right to be considered for promotion as not only a statutory right but also a fundamental right, there is no fundamental right to the promotion itself. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to a recent decision of this Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board v. Dharamdeo Das9, wherein it was observed as follows:
"18. It is no longer res integra that a promotion is effective from the date it is granted and not from the date when a vacancy occurs on the subject post or when the post itself is created. No doubt, a right to be considered for promotion has been treated by courts not just as a statutory right but as a fundamental right, at the same time, there is no fundamental right to promotion itself. In this context, we may profitably cite a recent decision in Ajay Kumar Shukla v. Arvind Rai10 where, citing earlier precedents in Director, Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty11 and Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab12, a three-Judge Bench observed thus:
41. This Court, time and again, has laid emphasis on right to be considered for promotion to be a fundamental right, as was held by K. Ramaswamy, J., in Director, Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty in para 4 of the report which is reproduced below:
'4....... There is no fundamental right to promotion, but an employee has only right to be considered for promotion, when it arises, in accordance with relevant rules. From this perspective in our view the conclusion of the High Court that the gradation list prepared by the corporation is in violation of the right of respondent-writ petitioner to equality enshrined under Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution, and the respondent-writ petitioner was unjustly denied of the same is obviously unjustified.'
42. A Constitution Bench in Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, laying emphasis on Article 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India held that if a person who satisfies the eligibility and the criteria for promotion but still is not considered for promotion, then there will be clear violation of his/her's fundamental right. Jagannadha Rao, J. speaking for himself and Anand, C.J., Venkataswami, Pattanaik, Kurdukar, JJ., observed the same as follows in paras 22 and 27:
'Articles 14 and 16(1) : is right to be considered for promotion a fundamental right
22. Article 14 and Article 16(1) are closely connected. They deal with individual rights of the person. Article 14 demands that the 'State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws'. Article 16(1) issues a positive command that:
'there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State'.
It has been held repeatedly by this Court that clause (1) of Article 16 is a facet of Article 14 and that it takes its roots from Article 14. The said clause particularises the generality in Article 14 and identifies, in a constitutional sense "equality of opportunity" in matters of employment and appointment to any office under the State. The word "employment" being wider, there is no dispute that it takes within its 6 2025:JHHC:28071 fold, the aspect of promotions to posts above the stage of initial level of recruitment. Article 16 (1) provides to every employee otherwise eligible for promotion or who comes within the zone of consideration, a fundamental right to be "considered" for promotion. Equal opportunity here means the right to be "considered" for promotion. If a person satisfies the eligibility and zone criteria but is not considered for promotion, then there will be a clear infraction of his fundamental right to be "considered" for promotion, which is his personal right.
"Promotion" based on equal opportunity and seniority attached to such promotion are facets of fundamental right under Article 16(1).
***
27. In our opinion, the above view expressed in Ashok Kumar Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.13, and followed in Jagdish Lal [Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana14, and other cases, if it is intended to lay down that the right guaranteed to employees for being "considered" for promotion according to relevant rules of recruitment by promotion (i.e. whether on the basis of seniority or merit) is only a statutory right and not a fundamental right, we cannot accept the proposition. We have already stated earlier that the right to equal opportunity in the matter of promotion in the sense of a right to be "considered" for promotion is indeed a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16(1) and this has never been doubted in any other case before Ashok Kumar Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.], right from 1950.'
"20. In State of Bihar v. Akhouri Sachindra Nath15, it was held that retrospective seniority cannot be given to an employee from a date when he was not even borne in the cadre, nor can seniority be given with retrospective effect as that might adversely affect others. The same view was reiterated in Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India16, where it was held that when a quota is provided for, then the seniority of the employee would be reckoned from the date when the vacancy arises in the quota and not from any anterior date of promotion or subsequent date of confirmation. The said view was restated in Uttaranchal Forest Rangers' Assn. (Direct Recruit) v. State of U.P.17, in the following words:
'37. We are also of the view that no retrospective promotion or seniority can be granted from a date when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre so as to adversely affect the direct recruits appointed validly in the meantime, as decided by this Court in Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India held that when promotion is outside the quota, seniority would be reckoned from the date of the vacancy within the quota rendering the previous service fortuitous. The previous promotion would be regular only from the date of the vacancy within the quota and seniority shall be counted from that date and not from the date of his earlier promotion or subsequent confirmation. In order to do justice to the promotes, it would not be proper to do injustice to the direct recruits......
38. This Court has consistently held that no retrospective promotion can be granted nor can any seniority be given on retrospective basis from a date when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre particularly when this would adversely affect the direct recruits who have been appointed validity in the meantime."
(emphasis supplied)
20. In the instant case, it is evident that while respondent No. 1 was recommended for promotion before his retirement, he could not assume the duties of the Chief Scientific Officer. Rule 54(1)(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules, clearly stipulates that an employee must assume the responsibilities of a higher post to draw the corresponding pay, thus, preventing posthumous or retrospective promotions in the absence of an enabling provision.7
2025:JHHC:28071
16. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court dealing with the similar issue in the case of State of Kerala & Ors. Vs. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai (supra), cited by the petitioner himself, has held as under:
"4. ........................... So far as the situation with regard to monetary benefits with retrospective promotion is concerned, that depends upon case to case. There are various facets which have to be considered. Sometimes in a case of departmental enquiry or in criminal case it depends on the authorities to grant full back wages or 50 per cent of back wages looking to the nature of delinquency involved in the matter or in criminal cases where the incumbent has been acquitted by giving benefit of doubt or full acquittal. Sometimes in the matter when the person is superseded and he has challenged the same before Court or Tribunal and he succeeds in that and direction is given for reconsideration of his case from the date persons junior to him were appointed, in that case the Court may grant sometime full benefits with retrospective effect and sometimes it may not. Particularly when the administration has wrongly denied his due then in that case he should be given full benefits including monetary benefit subject to there being any change in law or some other supervening factors. However, it is very difficult to set down any hard and fast rule. ............................................."
17. There is no two opinion that when an employee has wrongly denied any promotion he should be given full benefits but at the same time the principle of 'no work no pay' cannot be accepted as rule of thumb. In the case of Government of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that promotion becomes effective from the date it is granted; rather than from the date a vacancy arises or the post is created.
18. It is also well settled that the right to be considered for promotion is not only a statutory right but also a fundamental right but at the same time there is no fundamental right to the promotion itself.
19. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, there is no illegality in the action of the respondents; as such, no relief can be granted to this petitioner.
20. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.) kunal/-
AFR 8