B RAJENDRA KUMAR Vs. AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had joined service in the erstwhile International Airport Authority of India, on 6.7.1992, as Assistant Grade-III. The International Airport Authority and the National Airport Authority were merged on enactment of the Airport Authority of India Act, 1994 which came into force on 1.4.1995. With the advent of the Airport Authority of India Act, the International Airport Authority and the National Airport Authority ceased to exist. The scales of pay, fitment formula and dearness allowance (DA) of the Non-executives in the Airport Authority of India was revised as per Ext. P1 Office Order. Under Ext P1, new Non-executives grades were introduced, to be operative from 1.8.2001. Accordingly, the grade of Assistant was made equivalent to NE-5 level, that of Senior Assistant to NE-6, Supervisor to NE-7, Superintendent to NE-8 and Senior Superintendent to NE-9.

(2.) The petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant (office) (NE-6) on 1.3.2005, thereafter as Supervisor (office) (NE-7) on 1.3.2007, Superintendent (office) (NE-8) on 1.7.2012 and placed in the Grade of Senior Superintendent (HR) (NE-9) on 1.7.2014. The Airport Authority of India had formulated Ext.P2 guidelines governing the recruitment and promotion of its employees. As per Clause 22 (iv) of Ext P2 guidelines, employees in position as on 31.7.2001 having line of promotion from NE-6 to NE-8 or NE-6 to NE-9 shall be granted promotion, against supernumerary posts in NE-8 or NE-9 as the case may be, on completion of 8 years regular service in NE-6. It is made clear in Ext.P2 that, such promotion would be granted as a one time measure, subject to the promoted employees giving irrevocable written undertaking that they will follow this channel of promotion. As per Clause 22(iv)(iii) of Ext.P2 Guidelines, it is specified that the new incumbents appointed in NE scale on or after 1.8.2001 will follow the normal promotion channel, i.e, from NE-6 to NE-7 and onwards. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was promoted to the NE-6 Grade only on 01.03.2005 and therefore, he was not entitled for promotion to NE-8 or NE-9, in accordance with Clause 22(iv) of Ext P2.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is that, persons who are identically situated and holding identical posts of Senior Assistant (Accounts) (NE-6), in the Finance Division were granted the benefit of promotion from NE-6 to NE-9, in the manner provided under Clause 22 (iv) of Ext.P2 guidelines, in spite of those persons having failed to satisfy the requirements specified in the clause. It is submitted that the petitioner had filed Ext.P4 representation pointing out specific instances of such promotion being granted to persons who were not in position as on 31.7.2001, as envisaged in Clause 22 (iv), and had demanded that the competent authority may take necessary action to promote him also as per the old Recruitment and Promotion (R&P) Rules, which was the basis for granting promotion to the persons mentioned in his representation. The petitioner's request was rejected as per Ext.P7, stating that the grant of benefit of promotion from Senior Assistants (Accounts) to Superintendent (Accounts) was done as per the old R&P guidelines, with reference to CHQ Order dated 7.2.2012 and that the orders were specifically issued for Accounts Cadre from CHQ. In Ext P7 it was further stated that since the petitioner belongs to HR Division, his request for promotion to the post of Superintendent (office) on completion of 3 years, i.e; at par with Superintendent (Accounts), cannot be considered. Aggrieved by the rejection of his request, the writ petition was filed seeking to quash Ext.P7 and for a direction to the 5th respondent to pass orders promoting the petitioner from the post of Senior Assistant (office) (NE-6) to Senior Superintendent (NE-9) on completion of 3 years with effect from 1.3.2008, at par with Superintendent (Accounts) (NE8) under the respondents, as granted to the new incumbents as per Exts.P5 to P7 orders. In the Writ Petition and during the course of hearing, it was contended that having promoted identically situated persons, the respondents could not have rejected the petitioner's request for similar treatment and that such rejection amounts to discrimination and arbitrary exercise of power.