Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Jharkhand High Court

Ramchandra Tiwari vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd Through Its ... on 1 November, 2017

Author: S.N. Pathak

Bench: S.N. Pathak

                                             1

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             W.P.(S) No. 1473 of 2015
                                          .....

           Ramchandra Tiwari                                         .... Petitioner
                                          Versus

1. Bharat   Coking   Coal   Ltd.   (BCCL)   through   its   Chairman   cum  Managing Director having office at Koyla Bhawan, Dist­ Dhanbad.

2. Chief   Personnel   Manager,   Directorate   of   Personnel,  Headquarter, BCCL, Dhanbad.

3. Chief   Personnel   Manager   (NEE),   Personnel   Department,  Headquarter, BCCL, Dhanbad.

4. General   Manager,   Lodna   Area   of   BCCL,   at­   Jeenagora,   Dist­  Dhanbad.

5. Superintending Engineer (E & M), D.G. Station of BCCL, At­  Jealgora, Dist­ Dhanbad  ....     Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N. PATHAK For the Petitioner : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Vishwanath Ray, Advocate : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Vijay Kant Dubey, Advocate st  13 / Dated 1       November, 2017     Petitioner has approached this court with a prayer for quashing  the   reasoned   order   dated   30­01­15   (Annexure­13)   passed   by  respondent no. 4 whereby the representation made pursuant to order  of this Hon'ble court (Annexure­12) for regularization of the services  of   petitioner   on   the   post   of   clerk   General,   grade­III   by   way   of  promotion.

Factual Matrix:

2. Petitioner was appointed as Trade Apprentice (T), category­ 1  on   22.02.1997   at   D.G.   Station   of   BCCL,   Jealgora,   Dhanbad   and  allotted   his   Personnel   No.­   01353952.   It   is   specific   case   of   the  petitioner   that   since   his   appointment   he   was   working   as   a   clerk  General   at   D.G.   Station,   Jealgora   under   the   respondent   no.   5. 

Thereafter on permission granted by the respondent no. 3 vide letter  dated 08.03.99, the petitioner had acquired the higher qualification  of   post   Graduate   Diploma   in   Personnel   Management   &   Industrial  Relation   from   the   Distance   Education   Scheme   of   Annamalai  University. Controlling Authority of petitioner, Lodna Area of BCCL  issued a letter dated 05­01­99 having no.­ DGJ/99/05 for authorizing  the   petitioner   for   performing   the   duty   of   Store   Work   &   other  2 miscellaneous   official   jobs   as   and   where   required   due   to   non  availability and shortage of store personnel and other official staff at  D.G.   Station   of   BCCL.   Similarly   petitioner   was  also  authorized   for  performing several other jobs in view of the recommendation of the  controlling authority. In the meantime the petitioner represented for  regularization   of   his   services   on   the   post   of   Clerk   in   Ministerial  Discipline   and   the   same   was   considered   by   the   management   and  forwarded to the competent authority vide a report dated 18­12­07  for   approval   of   the   matter.   In   view   of   the   policy   decision   of   the  company for regularization of the PR/TR employees engaged in the  clerical job prior to 31­12­00 and on the basis of information/details  of such employees submitted by the management, a list was prepared  for interview of those employees vide letter dated 19.01.08. Though  the petitioner was duly qualified and fully eligible for the said post  but   the   name   of   the   petitioner   was   not   included   in   the   list   for  promotion to the post of clerk grade­ III due to lethargic approach of  the   respondent­authorities.   The   name   of   the   petitioner   was  recommended on several occasions for consideration of his case for  regularization   but   similarly   situated   persons,   even   junior   to   the  petitioner were regularized and promoted to the said post but the  petitioner   was   deprived   due   to   the   reasons   best   known   to   the  respondents. As the case of the petitioner was never considered for  promotion/regularization   to   the   post   of   clerk   grade­III   and   it   was  only in the year 2015 an admit card was issued to the petitioner for  appearing before the interview board for consideration of his case for  promotion.   The   petitioner   had   approached   this   court   twice   for  consideration   of   his   case   for   promotion   and   this   court   after   due  consideration   directed   the   respondents   to   pass   a   reasoned   order  regarding consideration of his promotion on the post of grade­III as  juniors to the petitioners have already been promoted as back as in  2008.   In   view   of   the   observations   of   this   court   the   petitioner  represented before the respondent­authorities. The respondents have  illegally and arbitrarily without considering the case of the petitioner  and giving due consideration to the observation of the Hon'ble court  3 have rejected the representation vide order dated 30.1.15 Annexure­ 13 and as such this present writ petition has been preferred.

3. Mr. Birender Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner argues  that the respondents have illegally and arbitrarily rejected the case of  petitioner for promotion/regularization on the post of clerk grade­III.  The learned counsel argues that the promotion/regularization of the  petitioner   was   due   as   back   as   in   2008   itself   and   juniors   to   the  petitioners have already been considered and granted promotion to  grade­III,   who   are   now   working   on   the   post   of   Grade­II   and   the  petitioner has been deprived of the fruits of promotion. The learned  counsel argues that the ground for rejection of the case of petitioner  is not tenable in the eyes of law as it is not a case that petitioner was  not ready to face the interview. The case of the petitioner was never  taken for consideration and no admit card was issued. His name was  never empaneled for participation in the interview and as such the  petitioner  was prevented from participating in the interview board  due to arbitrary action of the respondents, which is not tenable in the  eyes of law and as such a direction may be given to the respondents  to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of  clerk Grade­III. The learned counsel further argues that he is even  ready to face the interview if an admit card is issued to him but a  direction   may   be   given   to   the   respondents   to   consider   his  representation from the date his juniors were considered and granted  promotion.

4. Per   contra,   counter­affidavit   has   been   filed.   Learned   counsel  appearing   for   respondent­BCCL,   Mr.   Vijay   Kant   Dubey   vehemently  opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and  argues   that   petitioner   never   participated   in   interview.   Ample  opportunity   was   given   to   him   to   participate   but   he   failed   to  participate on the ground that writ petition is pending in the Hon'ble  High Court and as such no case is made out for promotion to Grade­ III, it can only be considered if the petitioner faces the interview and  participates in the D.P.C.

5. Be that as it may having gone through the rival submissions of  4 the   parties   this   court   is   of   the   considered   view   that   case   of   the  petitioner needs consideration. It was due to lethargic approach of  the   respondent­authorities,   the   petitioner   was   prevented   from  participating in the interview or to face the D.P.C. It is not a case that  petitioner  was earlier considered, issued admit card and petitioner  failed to participate in the interview. It is only in the year 2015 i.e  after seven long years, the petitioner was considered for appearing  before the D.P.C which shows that the respondents intentionally with  malafide intention deprived the petitioner from appearing before the  interview  board.   Though it is not  the  right  of an  employee  to get  promotion   but   it   is   the   right   of   an   employee,   even   article   14   is  attracted, to be considered for promotion when in the case when the  juniors   to   the   petitioners   have   been   considered   and   granted  promotion.

6. As   a  cumulative  effect  of  the   aforesaid  rules/guidelines/legal  propositions, I hereby direct the respondent no. 4 General Manager,  Lodna Area of BCCL to consider the case of petitioner sympathetically  taking into consideration that juniors to the petitioners have already  been given promotion on the post of Grade­III and further on the post  of Grade­II. The petitioner is directed to face the interview board and  appear before the D.P.C and after appearance before the D.P.C and  after  completion of the procedures for promotion, the petitioner if  found   entitled   for   the   said   promotion   to   the   post   of   Grade   III   be  considered   taking   into   account   that   juniors   to   the   petitioner   have  already been granted promotion to the post of Grade­ III as back as in  2008.

7. The entire exercise be completed within a period of 8 weeks  from the date of appearance of the petitioner before the D.P.C.

8.   With   the   aforesaid   observations   the   writ   petition   stands  allowed.

(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) ­ Pallavi/