Karnataka High Court
P Nagaraja Rao vs The Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd on 14 November, 2008
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
ireem IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGA AL OF 2B DATED THIS THE 14™ DAY OF NOVEM iBE 2008 | BEFORE. : | | | ; THE HON'BLE MR. It ISTICE ANAN 1D BY PRA REDDY WRIP PE HON No. 20408) OF 2003. (S-PRO) BETWEEN: Sn. P. Nagaraja Reo, 56 ye ars S/o Late Sri P Venkgta Rao. Assistant Persone! OMfcer ~~ Helicopter Division nt, : HAL, Bang: share 17 ae .. PETITIONER (By Shri. SV. Narasimhan, Advocate) AND: oe The Hiridusian Aeronautics _ Limited, Represented by its NS Managing, Director Pengalore Complex Ban walore-560 O17 "The Hindustan Aeronautics - Limited, By its Chief "Manager (Personnel and Administration) Helicopter Division Bangalore-560 017 > - SE be P 3. Sr. Ramachandraiah S/o Late Kshetrapalaish Deputy } Manager (Personnel) Enemne Division oe ustan Aeronaulics imrted, Rangalore-360 O17 Sri R. Srinivasan Working as Manager (Persone!) Overhaul Daviston, Hindustan Aeronaulics Limited oo OS Bangalore-S60 017 ©) RESPONDENTS =
(By Shr. T, Pajaram, Advoeak le for Respondent N No. 2, Smt. Sheela Krish Ra, Advoea ate for Resnondent No. 3 and PY eae aateeepdec Mogan! seh Respondents Nos. | apd a se ae ateake ee This. Writ Petition: is filed onder Noes 23 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India ora uying io quash the Orders dated 11.9.2000 vide Annexure _F. dated 6 16.2000 on fumexure Goof Respondent No. |. and. endorsement dated 28.10.2000 vide Annexure. Pol Re espondent No. land ele.
the oF "This WHIPS shiton coming on for Hearing this day Court made the following: -
& R DER Heard the Counsel for ihe pe fikener: aed the respondents.
2. The . Sue had joined the Services al the frst respondent ~ Company on 9.12 1966 ws Clerk (A? (Group ©) in Stores Departmeti Engines: -- He was further promoted as Inspector-B Group C) on 110.1973. He was promoted as nspeclur -- A (Group F jou 258.1976. iis further contended thai "on P44 1982: ihe petitioner was assigned fo Personne! and Adiainistrabion, Department are postecdd us Assistunt Supervisor i Group F ) an 26. 12.1984. cloner was further, promoted as an 'Senior "Assistant Supervisor on 1} 1987 and as Semor Assistant Supervisor (Seale 10) on 15.4.1997. He was further promoted to the post of Assistant Personnel Officer (Grade D) on 1.7.1998, By an order dated 1.11987, the petilioner was promoted [0 Grovgs Fe from Group E. The petifioner's name is s found al serial. No.l a4.
3. The pelilioner submits that the 4 third: respondent who had joined the service as Clerk cunt Ty past (Group By inthe year:
1970 and promoted as Clerk cum - ps (Group Chen. i BA LOT2. The Uurd respondent was pit wmoted as Seinor ¢ Clerk (Group DB) on PS TL LOTS, He was s further promi md as > Assistant Supervisor EMOTE } ' (Group E} cu 25.11 1983 -and- as, Seve w Assistant Supervisor atta (Group Pon 112.1987. The third 3 responde deni was promoted as Assistant Supervisor (Seale By on 1S4 1997 and as Assistant Personsiel Oftiver (Gr jade T) on 17.1998. [tis further contended that a comparison of the service particulars would demorsinate thai fhe polivionst "ras semor fo the third respondent in all the cadres. 4: Ut ay further confended thet the fourth respondent 2 jpined die service as Clerk cum Typist (Group B)in the year 197! and promoted as Clerk cum Typist (Group Cj) on 19.10.1972. He was promoted as Stenographer "A' (Group D) on 244.1974 and as Assistant Supervisor (Group FE) on 14.1.1984. He owas further promefed us Senior Assistant Supervisor (Group Py on iw 1 LOSy aml as Assistant Personnel OMicer (Grade Poon 23 05 1988). Phas respondent was further promoted ax Persomme! OMcer {Grade 1
4 f¥t 'le on 17.199? and as Deputy } Man: ager {Personnel} (Grade TD) on 8.8.1997 and as Manager (Persorme)) ino the year 2601 A comparative statement of servic ¢ pares he Wsuol the pelilioner and respondents 7 and would tediieate (hat the responctent Nod was junior to the- peiidonisi up to the piost of Assistant Supervisor (Group EF) bei hes been erroneously granted promofion lo the higher cadres; ignering. the eligitilify and seniority of the ; "a The farit cee cea tae deed that the < n from Gr . yelitioner. Ht is further contended thal the promotion from Group . i } in gher 'Pe vat ~ Grade J is by selection, which is done by inferal menioas per Personnel Circular No.$67, § 26.8 19B6- 'It is further contended that Clause 6&2 of the circular provides for promotion to Grade 1, Workman im Group F only will x, ~ be eligible to be considered and clause 6.3 provides that said Grade T post to be filled by internal merit selection, hence, z m
-
semoriy in Group F has to be taken inte consideration and net senioniiy in Group FE, Dor C) The pelitiener contends thai iis ihe year F988, he was culled for writien tes for 'selection io the pes Assistant Personnel OMcer. The 'total Dumber of cand called for wrilten test wers four in the ot ider of ire , "rif including iv, the fourth respondent and one PN Sreedharan Nair athe process of selection, the sepne of Shenlf was considered beng senior io the fourth respondent, 'thoug! on the | four respondent was junior fo the pelitione, he wis vase band selected for the posi of Assistant Personne! OMicer 7 Since the peiilioner wes denied of promotion, he had : suipmilied a 2 representation lo the Grievance Comimilice on 02.0 05, 1988. The Gnevance Conuritiee by us reply stated that the Internat Merit Scheme would nol come imfo review of the grievance procedure. Therefore, the petitioner had made a further representation lo the General Manager requesting for personal "hearing and seeking relief At this point of lime, the third | ; respondent had approached this Court by way of writ pelilion in W.P.No.6396/1993 seeking a direction to promote him to the post ZS ~3 Senior Assisiant Supervisor (Group F) with effect trom > OL.01.1987 and as Assistant Personne!-OMicer with effect from or) 'ata OS A988. Tt was his contention that the Rows 'pespondent was. jumior fo the petitioner and was i te the cadre of Senior Assistant Supervisor (Group Ph oon o1.0n ORT while the third respondent was promoted on 01121987, sind consequently (here 'gs 1 ge was a chang re-achion a earher protizel lon had been granted to the fourth respondent fo the cadre of Assist anf Personnel Officer and he had been discriminaied This Court by its corder dated 95.10.1999" allowed - the w rif: peilfion threcting the respondents | and 2 fo oe sasider vihe cause of "the third respondent far promotion to
- . the: post of Senior Assistant Supervisor (Group F) with effect from 01.01 1987. White this Court allowed the wri pelilion Sled by the thicd : respondent and had stated fo consider the third
- 'respondent for promotion to the higher cadres in accordance with law. The respondents } and 2 were therefore required to consider "the case of the third respondent for promotion in accordance with the Rules and Career Planning Promotion Scheme The & "~ respondents | and 2 had challenged the order of the learned Singie Judge by way of an appeal im WA No 7785/1999, which was . dismissed. The authorities, by an onder dated oie 09. 2090, . approved the promotion of the third respondent ie the r ws of Semor Assistant Supervisor (Grow, ou; BD. with "effect from OL.OL PORT and to fis post ol Assis ani Personnel OMicer (Grade > with effect from 01 10 1991 and lo the pos wt 'of Personnel Officer (Grade TT) with ste > trom ont '0. 11995, By an order dated 06.10.2000, the hind responders we owas promoted fo fhe post of Depuly Manager (Personne!) '(Grade I} with effect from L102 200 ). The petitioner upon fearing the consequential ~ benefis grnted! fo his junior had made a representation dated
12. 10.2000 ics take necessary achon to promote the pelilioner on par with respondents 3 and 4 and grant consequential reliefs. The pelloner was informed that he could not compare his case in that of respondent 3 and as per the directions of this Court, the third "respondent was promoted m accordance with law. The petitioner had, thereafter, approached this Court by way of wril petition in @ W.P.No.730/2001. The petition coming on for' prelanhiary hearing in B-Group as the petition did nol contend prayer challenging the promotion of respondents 3 and 4, this Court by. its order dated 26.12.2002. dismissed 'the writ 'petition aS wilhdrawn with liberty lo file fresh petition leaving upon the contentions. Tt is in this background, that ihe present petition is fled.
5. The Counsel for. the peiitioner would reiterate the above circunmisiances and would submit thal the promotion having been granted fe the dird respondent and the third respondent cbemyg adnitiedly junior to the petitioner. it amounts to supper ad - - oe 7 . ee et + a + . ; . -- sspble . he : TI 7 ah: . a session Of a senior winch is not permissible in lav. The direction issued. by this Court did not permit to grant ailomatic promotion _ bat to be considered in accordance with law. The petilioner, therefore, could not have been over looked in granting promotion tothe Hard respondent. The prorotion granted fo the third * respondent from 11.09.2000 to the post of Assistant Personnel : + been considered and re 19 Officer (Grade 1) without following the mandatory provisions of selection is legal, The further onde es on TL OS 2000 and 610.2000 suffer from arbitrariness on 'that persons sinilariy sHuated have been discriminated. The respondents | and 2 have . . * n ' . 2 at weg a oe i . . + : - ae ek . * ;
faded in' statutory obhygetion aud rt promoting a juror and therefore, would seek that the © weil {pet ed be al owed,
6. Wibnte responenis | and. 2 have entered appearance ad obj ae ; ad Licek eavareey ues decent and have ble Stateniig el of 6 Bjeo fons io contend that responion! a niemat Mera Scheme F Nod was promote vied "ey Grade q under Selection and: that he he h ad quabfied i fhe writes fest and as such che we pron my ted to Grade Ton 23.05 1988. The peliboner, on the ~~ hend, Bas a not cleared the written jest, which js mandatory in 4 7 . . . . .
ihe Internal Medi Scheme Selection. The petitioner's case having 4 having been found suitable, the pelllboner ocantal have any grievance. In the promotion process, the third respondent had not been called for the fest along with respondent No.4 and as such, the third respondent had made a grievance and i approached this Court Tas obedience to the direchions of tas -- Court fhat the third respondent was considered and thercalley, promoted. The petilioner therefore could wot seek fo place an the:
same looting. The petilioner's case is that hé-ouwhi tohave been . % considered for the post of Manager (Personnel) in the usual course is mol true and) correct, The petilioner wes. promoted as per promotion pobiey ofthe Company and hée-was promoted as and when he was centifled. The coutention that he was senior fo respondent No 3 ia all grades ar hence, he has to be accorded promotion im comparison with the third respondent is without %y basis... The respondent No.3 has been in the Personnel and 2 8 Adnivusirative discipline right from the line af his appom tent.
The pefifioner on the other hand, was transferred to the Personne! . and Admiuistrative Department only on 26.12. 7984 und as such the petitioner cannot claim to be a senior to the third respondent. Lis this which is the primary contention of the respondents mamely that the petitioner had entered the Personnel and Administrative Department only on 26.12.1984 where as the S respondent No.3 was in the Administrative disciphne right From ihe year 1970.
re _ , ; ; wgtate + om a:
7. By way of reply, the Counsel flr the peohoner would confend thal for the purpose of PROMIGHON Unefe is ao rule or toa Melody jewel Met ct ee tghee be t, 7 7 "toeeus f to, regidation which imdioales Uiab semoriy.ought io be considered by a murero classilication that the date on Which dhe emiplovee has 4 "ee as re semoriy would necessurily have to eniered the depxriment.
be considered froma the date ot his appointment and denial of the promotion thei the petitioner had entered administrative discipline only in the year 1974 ant ierefore the respondent No.3 even though, junior lo the petitioner was sill have to be considered on " the ground that fe was in the administrative discipline night from ihe veins 1970 is wholly unfair and on the basis of any rule, the s . Counsel for the respondents had therefore sought time to produce . : the relevant regulation which would enable the respondents fo "offer promotion to the respondent No.3 while aking sume to the .pelifioner. The Counsel for the respondents, however, has now pleaded inability io produce such any regulation. &
8. On the face of it, therefore. 1 cannoi be said that the respondenis were justified in granting promotion on the basis of:
direction of this Court without further or test being conic insofar as the respondent No.3 fs-eonderned and the he wets in the administrative diseipline night trom the year 1976 whereas the petilioner had entere:t ihe deperiment only i the vear 1974. This is wholly ay Ai tre ary: ond cane be sustained. The petitioner admittedly heing he sevior§ fo-the respondent No.3 ought to have been considered white inpleinenting the directions issued hy this Court ms ihe first instance. The same not having been done, the "respondent No} be required to allord the petitioner is due. ane 'epson is allowed. Annexures F and G are | nuashed. he petitioner shall, therefore, be granted promotion with ef leet _ OLOLV987 and further promotion in accordance ie han asa Senior Assisiant Supervisor (Group F) and to the post of Assistant Personnel Officer (Grade T) with effect fron OL10.4991 and Personnel Officer (Grade TD with effect from & we oki 01.10.1995 and to the post of Deputy Manager (Giade HEyowith -
effect from 06.10.2000. The petitioner having allamed the age of -- superannuation on 31.10.2003 the respondents shall-release the. rebral benefits in favour of the petitioner within a penod of eight i ca . 4 gee -- oy - pn gee ; '* weeks. uo not carer, fromthe duie footiph ol a certilied copy of this order.
: -- Sd/=