Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. An application for review has been sought by the petitioner on the ground that this Court, while disposing of the writ petition dismissed the petition by wrongly assuming that the petitioner had been given promotion post from the post as Assistant Welder, which he already held. The petitioner has made an averment that the post offered to the petitioner as Welder was not promotional post for Assistant Welder but the said post as Assistant Welder was itself a redesigned as Welder and the next promotion was Welder grade-1. The petitioner's grievance is that he was fully eligible for the post of welder grade-1 and the post that should have been offered to him in compliance with the earlier High Court's direction in CWP No.8581 of 1994 was only the post as Welder grade-1 and not of Welder. Since the petitioner's grievance is that he had not been offered benefit of direction already contained in CWP No.8581 of 1994, his grievance whether the action of the respondent was in compliance of the direction given or he was denied promotion in the manner that he urges before the Court, it would become relevant to examine the order itself.

3. It is in pursuance to this above direction that it appears that Chief Engineer has sent a letter dated 3.7.1995 offering him post of Welder at the scale of 950-1800. The order issued on 3.7.1995 according to the petitioner, was not in compliance of direction already issued. His grievance was that when he was being regularised he should have been also promoted but the same was not done and he was being offered the same post as Welder which was merely a redesigned post of Assistant Welder. That it is merely a redesigned post is sought to be established by the applicant by pointing out to, two communications, one a letter by the Chief Engineer to all Superintendents Engineer (Annexure A-1) that refers to filling up post of direct recruitment quota in 3rd category of post which includes "Assistant Welder (now Welder)". In another communication (Annexure P-2) which the petitioner has secured through an information sought under the RTI Act, the Deputy Secretary Finance PSPC has given the information that the Assistant Welder's pay scale on 1.1.1986 was 950-1800 and Welder's pay scale which was increased to 3480-6500 from 1.1.1996 referred to the pre-revised scale as 950-1800 from 1.1.1986. It was only for Welder grade-I, the scales were different from 1.1.1986, i.e. from 1200-2200 increased to 4300-7500 from 1.1.1996. The contention therefore, was that when an offer was made on 3.7.1995 when he was being given the scale of 950-1800 it was indeed scale of Assistant Welder, later designated as Welder and not the promotion post which was Welder grade-1 in the scale of 1200-2200.

10. A response from the workman that he was not accepting the regularisation offered to him may seen crude, but it should be understood in the whole context, that he was complaining that it was not in compliance with the orders of the High Court . How the High Court's order was to be understood is how I have attempted to expatiate. I will not see that any issue of estoppel could come against the petitioner of what he was entitled to. The counsel for the respondents states that the petitioner has since been dismissed from service and, therefore, the review application itself cannot be entertained. The counsel for the petitioner, however, states that the validity of the dismissal need not to be addressed here, as it is a subject of challenge in some other forum but the petitioner will be satisfied if his position is made clear that the regularisation which was issued in the year 1995 shall be operative at least insofar as his own position as a Welder is assured and he be placed above Ranjit Singh and Manmohan Singh who had also been regularised. When I passed the judgement earlier I have made an observation to the effect that the petitioner was being promoted from the post of Assistant Welder to Welder. That observation was not correct. The post of Assistant Welder was only a redesigned post. On the date when the regularisation was effected he was also entitled for consideration for promotion. A compliance of the direction of this Court in earlier writ petition arose for the management only when a junior to the petitioner was regularised from the workcharge establishment. When the petitioner himself was regularised there was no further requirement for the petitioner to show that no other junior had been promoted. It was sufficient for him to rely on the fact that his own regularisation could not have been done in purported compliance of the High Court direction unless his junior has been regularised. If he was entitled to be regularised then the additional direction which was found in the order was, he should also to be promoted. He was entitled for the promotion post from the post of Assistant Welder by whatever designation the respondents called.