P VENKATACHALAM Vs. MADRAS FERTILISERS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THE writ petitioner has joined the first respondent Madras Fertilisers Ltd, a Government of India Company in the year 1977 as technician Grade-II was offered promotion to the post of Executive-I by notional seniority consequent on the preponement of implementation of 40 point roster from 01.01.1996 to 01.01.1990 by giving notional seniority date as 14.08.1995 by the order of the second respondent, dated 24.03.1998 also stating that the fitment benefits if any in E-1 will be given with effect from 01.11.1997. Based on the said offer, the petitioner has written to the second respondent on 17.04.1998 opting to continue in the same post in non supervisory Grade-V since there was no monetary benefit by the said proposal. That was accepted by the second respondent by letter dated 04.05.1998 permitting the petitioner to continue in the non supervisory Grade V as Senior Material Handling Assistant. It is stated as per the policy of the first respondent framed in the guidelines when a person declines to accept the permission he would not be eligible for promotion for a period of one year and only thereafter, he should be considered for promotion. THE grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of the lapse of one year from the date of option, the respondents are refusing the promotion to the petitioner in the next vacancy while the juniors were promoted upto E-II posts. In these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed to the effect that the conduct of the respondents is in violation of the rights under Article 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India that even as per the policy of the first respondent, the bar of further promotion is only for one year and after one year, the petitioner ought to have been considered for the next post of promotion, apart from many other grounds.

(3.) IT is stated that the petitioner put in a total period of service of 29 years in the category of non supervisory cadre and denied promotion to the post of E-I for the past 10 years even though his juniors have been promoted. He would rely upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in A.Satyanarayana and others Vs. S.Purushotham and others reported in 2008 (5) SCC 416 to substantiate his contention that the purpose of promotion is to remove stagnation and avoid frustration amongst the employees and therefore, this Court should taking note of such fact and interfere with for the purpose of rendering substantial justice.