V RAVINDRANATH Vs. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard petitioners' learned Advocate and the respondents learned Advocate. This case is very seriously contested by the respondents, the Mysore Electrical Industries Limited; (hereinafter referred to as the 'M.E.I.L.'). The controversy is within a narrow ambit insofar as the seven petitioners who are officers of the company claim that they were promoted to higher posts of Deputy Manager with effect from 18-10-1993 and that this position was confirmed by the company. They claim the higher emoluments, they represented several times and thereafter moved this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay them the higher emoluments with effect from that date with other consequential benefits. The respondents have seriously disputed the grant of any relief and their contention is that after the action of 18-10-1993, that certain improprieties and irregularities in relation to the decision to promote and the manner in which this was done surfaced and that the management was therefore required to set up a Review Committee to examine the matter. They contend that the promotions were kept in abeyance and that the entire matter after re-examination resulted in certain changes and that by orders dated 30-6-1995 copies of which have been filed, the seven petitioners have been promoted with effect from this date and that this is "in modification of the earlier order".

(2.) The petitioners' learned Advocate submits that the material produced before the Court unequivocally indicates that the petitioners were promoted to the higher post and that this position was confirmed. He states that at no point of time have those orders been set aside and that because the petitioners are now agitating the matter before the Court, as a cover up for the non-payment of the higher emoluments during this period, fresh orders have been passed and it is sought to substitute the orders dated 18-10-1993 by the present ones. He objects to this being permitted because he submits that as far as the seven petitioners are concerned, the present order indicates that they are in fact eligible for the promotion and there is no ambiguity with regard to the same. Secondly, he submits that at no time had the earlier order been set aside and that consequently, it is not permissible to thereafter change or tamper with them long after the original orders have taken effect. Lastly, his submission is that the petitioners have in fact discharged the duties in the higher posts and that consequently, they cannot be denied their emoluments.

(3.) The respondents' learned Advocate has advanced an interesting submission. First of all, he submits that the management does have the inherent right to modify or rectify a promotion order if it is disclosed that such reconsideration is necessary. He states that when such a procedure is adopted, that the earlier order necessarily goes into cold storage. He states that in the present case since the management did find the seven petitioners eligible, that fresh orders have been passed. Once the orders dated 30-6-1995 intend that they are in modification of the earlier orders, ipso facto the earlier orders are replaced by these. Under the circumstances, he submits that it is impermissible for the petitioners to claim any benefits under the old orders.