Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Shital Chandra Naskar vs Food Corporation Of India & Ors on 11 June, 2012
Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
In The High Court At Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas
W.P.No.4455 (W) of 2006
Sri Shital Chandra Naskar
v.
Food Corporation of India & Ors.
Mr. Maniklal Mukhopadhyay and Mr. Debajyoti Das, advocates, for the petitioner. Mr.
Prabir Kumar Chowdhury and Mr. Pinaki Ranjan Banerjee, advocates, for the
respondents.
Heard on: June 11,2012.
Judgment on: June 11,2012.
The Court: Mr. Mukhopadhyay appearing for the petitioner in this WP under art. 226 dated February 21,2006 has submitted that the petitioner has three grievances: he was superseded by his juniors and was not given stagnation increment and selection grade scale; and that the grievances have been stated in paras. 2,12 and 13 of the WP.
Relevant part of para.2 of the WP is quoted below:
"In the instant case, the petitioner is one of the seniormost candidate in the post of sweeper and accordingly, he should have been considered for promotion firstly to the post of dusting operator, and then dusting operator to senior dusting operator and thereafter senior dusting operator to senior picker. All the juniors and seniors to the petitioner have already been considered for promotion to the abovementioned posts leaving behind the petitioner, who has no vigilence case or vigilence case contemplated against him."
Relevant part of para.12 of the WP is quoted below:
"In the instant case, the petitioner had completed 8 years' service as sweeper prior to the year 1995, whereas though his juniors were released the said additional increment, your petitioner was deprived from getting the same even after completion of his 8 years' service in one post, i.e. as sweeper."
Relevant part of para.13 of the WP is quoted below:
"Your petitioner further respectfully states that he was again not only deprived from getting his 2 promotional posts as well as 8 years' stagnation increment but also deprived from getting selection grade scale which is allowed to the FCI employees after completion of 12 years' service in one post."
Food Corporation of India (in short FCI) has filed an Affidavit-in-Opposition dated July 4,2006. Mr. Chowdhury appearing for it has submitted that it has dealt with the petitioner's three grievances in paras. 4,5 and 8 of its AO.
Relevant part of para.4 of the AO is quoted below:
"With reference to paragraphs 1 and 2 of the said writ petition, I deny and dispute the allegations made therein, save and except what are matters of record, I state that vide Regional Office (WB) Office Order No.676/1995 issued under Reference No.Estt- 2(II)/Promotion/Cat.IV/95 dated 23.12.1995, the petitioner was duly promoted to the post of Dusting Operator from the post of Sweeper/Safaiwala."
Relevant part of para.5 of the AO is quoted below:
"In this connection, I state that petitioner has made allegations to the effect that his Juniors got promotion superseding the petitioner being the Seniormost Candidate but no where in the petition he has mentioned the names of his Junior who got such promotion superseding the petitioner and as such the said allegations is totally fabricated and far from the truth which has no basis at all and as such the same is being specifically denied by the deponent."
In para.8 of the AO it has been stated that there is no provision to give a Category IV CDA employee any stagnation increment benefit on completion of 8 years' service.
As to selection grade benefit, the case stated in para.8 of the AO is as follows. In an order dated April 26,1994 the petitioner was named as one of the employees eligible to get the selection grade IDA pattern scale. The competent authority issued an order dated May 17/19,1994 giving him the requisite opportunity to exercise option for the IDA pattern selection grade scale, for he was on the CDA pattern scale. He chose not to exercise the option.
Mr. Mukhopadhyay has argued as follows. FCI promoted the Category IV employees to higher posts in contravention of the provisions of the regulations. The document at p.7 of the Affidavit-in-Reply will prove this fact. The petitioner was never asked to exercise option for the IDA pattern selection grade scale. FCI should be directed to give the petitioner promotion to the higher posts from 1992 with notional benefits and a fresh opportunity to exercise option for the IDA pattern selection grade scale. Even employees who have retired from FCI are being given such opportunity.
The case of supersession is vague and speculative. The petitioner has not said when he was superseded by his junior and who was the junior. It is not disputed that he was promoted from the post of Sweeper to the post of Dusting Operator as back as 1995.
Making sweeping allegation that he was superseded he brought this WP only in 2006; and only with his AR he has produced a letter(AR p.7) written by the General Manager (Personal) of FCI to a Senior Regional Manager of FCI. This cannot be the fundament for concluding that from 1992 promotions to higher posts were given in contravention of the regulations.
The petitioner is claiming stagnation increment on the basis of a Circular, a copy whereof is at p.28 of the WP. The Circular was issued in 1992 and it is evident therefrom that it was applicable only to the Category III employees. There is nothing to show that the Category IV employees of FCI were entitled to any stagnation increment benefit. I am, therefore, of the view that the petitioner's claim for stagnation increment is baseless.
Pursuant to a Circular No.22 of 1992 dated December 30,1992 (WPp.29) the petitioner was entitled to the IDA pattern selection grade scale. Since he was on the CDA pattern scale, he was required to exercise option for the IDA pattern selection grade scale. The document at p.17 of the AO is an Office Order dated April 26, 1994. It shows that the petitioner was found eligible for the IDA pattern selection grade scale.
The document at p.19 of the AO is an Office Order dated May 17, 1994. It shows that the petitioner and others were asked to exercise the requisite option. The admitted position is that the petitioner did not exercise option in favour of the IDA pattern selection grade scale. This fact is also evident from the document at p.20 of the AO, a letter of the official concerned of FCI.
In the WP these facts were not disclosed. There is no reason to accept the case that FCI actually did not give the petitioner an opportunity to exercise option for the IDA pattern selection grade scale. A baseless submission has been made that even employees retiring on the CDA pattern scale are being given opportunity to exercise option for the IDA pattern selection grade scale.
The petitioner choosing not to exercise the option as back as 1994 and approaching the Writ Court in 2006 cannot be permitted now in 2012 to exercise option for the IDA pattern selection grade scale with effect from 1994, especially when FCI committed no wrong.
For these reasons, the WP is dismissed. No costs. Certified xerox.
Sh(c);ab(f) (Jayanta Kumar Biswas,J)