Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(14)Only in these circumstances, the grievance of the petitioners is that though they had completed 8 years, there has been no financial or positional upgradation of these petitioners from the post of Supervisor Grade-II to Grade-I which has subsequently been redesignated as Junior Engineer to Junior Engineer Grade-I. Such upgradation and promotion even in the redesignated post have been given to number of such persons, who had been appointed between the years 1989 and 1993 and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis illustratively 12 such persons have been given by the petitioners' side who were appointed from 10.08.1989 to 29.09.1993 who were designated or promoted on completion of 8 years of service from 10.08.1997 to 29.09.2001 and based on the Industrial Tribnual Award dated 05.04.2004, their pay was fixed at Rs.5,500-200-11,380 with effect from 01.01.1997 and after redesignation, their pay had been fixed at Rs.6,170-230-11,975. (15)Such benefit extended to various such persons who had also been similarly placed like that of petitioners, of course, they were appointed before the petitioners' appointment, had not been extended to the petitioners even though they completed more than 15 to 17 years of service.

(19)The learned counsel for the petitioners would further contend that it was a mere redesignation of the posts pursuant to the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal because everyone who were working as Supervisor Grade-II like the petitioners, were having the Diploma qualification. Therefore, as per the directions issued from time to time by the Central https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Government, such a redesignation become inevitable and when this was raised by the Employees' Union before the Industrial Tribunal, that was rightly accepted by the Tribunal and such an Award was passed and therefore, redesignation also was given effect to. (20)Merely because the redesignation has been effected, it cannot be stated that the petitioners are not entitled to get promotion/financial upgradation by citing reasons that the redesignated post, namely, Junior Engineer and Junior Engineer Grade-I do not form part of the Annexure attached with the Settlement dated 12.04.1978.

c) Also, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2005 [8] SCC 264 [U.P.State Spinning Co. Ltd Vs. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.S.Pandey and Another].

(24)By relying upon these judgments, the learned Standing counsel raised preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petitions. (25)That apart, on merits of the case, the learned Standing counsel would contend that, though these petitioners were appointed in the year 1997 or 1998, that appointment was purely temporary because at that time, there was a major work entrusted with the Chennai Port Trust, i.e, establishment of Ennore Port. Only for that purpose, a large number of staff and engineers like the petitioners were engaged on temporary basis and once the job was over, normally these kind of temporary persons would have been ousted. But, the Chennai Port Trust only extended the temporary service of these people as there was no sanctioned post of either Supervisor Grade-II and Grade-I or redesignated posts of Junior Engineer or Junior Engineer Grade-I were available to accommodate these petitioners on permanent basis. He would also submit that, hence, the continuance of these petitioners for all these years is only on temporary basis and this became evident when only in the year 2015 after getting the nod from the Government of India, Ministry of Shipping, the service of some of the petitioners i.e., 13 out of 27 petitioners in WP.No.8685/2018 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis have been regularised. Insofar as the remaining 14 are concerned, they were regularised only in the year 2004 or 2005.

(26)Therefore, the learned Standing counsel would submit that assuming without admitting that the petitioners are entitled to get the benefit arising out of the Settlement for getting promotion or financial upgradation from Supervisor Grade-II to Supervisor Grade-I or from the redesignated post of Junior Engineer to Junior Engineer Grade-I, the minimum required experience or service of 8 years since they have not completed after they have been regularised, the question of giving such promotion or upgradation does not arise. Hence, on that ground itself, the plea raised by the petitioners, since are untenable, is liable to be rejected, he contended. (27)Further, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents / Port Trust would submit that, insofar as the 18[1] Settlement dated 12.04.1978 is concerned that was made between the parties only based on the prevailing situation then, where, such number of designations were available including Supervisor Grade-II and Grade-I. Since there were stagnation of promotion for several years, such a Settlement had become necessitated and that position is not available now insofar as the post of Junior Engineer and Junior Engineer Grade-I is concerned. Only in the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis sanctioned post, eligible persons would be getting promotion and these petitioners had been working originally as Supervisors Grade-II and Grade-I on temporary basis and subsequently, after redesignation only, recently had been regularised, the import of the Settlement or its' clauses cannot be expected to be implemented or extended in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, on the basis of the 18[1] Settlement, such a benefit since has not been accrued on the petitioners, the said benefit cannot be expected to be extended to them. Therefore, the learned Standing counsel would submit that, on the merits of the case also, the plea raised by the petitioners are liable to be rejected.