RAMCHANDRA TRIMBAK JOSHI Vs. MAHARASTRA STATE ELECYTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the Respondent no. 1, a statutory board constituted by the State of Maharashtra under the provisions of Sec. 5(1) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, to grant deemed date of his promotion to the post of Stores Superintendent with effect from 31.10.1975 and fix his seniority as the Stores Superintendent on the basis of the said deemed date and grant him the benefits of salary with retrospective effect from such deemed date. The present Writ Petition is filed on 28.9.1987 and is pending for final hearing since then.

(2.) Before we set out the factual matrix as averred by the Petitioner himself, it is relevant for our purpose to record at this stage itself that the Petitioner was promoted to the post of Stores Superintendent in April 1978, and he joined on 9.5.1978. Thereafter, the Petitioner was again promoted to the post of Stores Officer on and from 19.6.1986. There is no dispute that on the date of filing of the petition he was holding the post of Stores Officer and he has been holding the said post even as on today though, delayed according to the Petitioner, the Respondents have finally done justice to the Petitioner by acknowledging his seniority and merits by giving him the aforesaid two promotions. He is struggling for getting the deemed date of promotion as Stores Superintendent with effect from 31.10.1975, the date on which his other colleagues, Stores Assistants, were promoted to the post of Stores Superintendent. As averred by the Petitioner and not disputed by the Respondents the fact is that out of four Stores Assistants promoted as Stores Superintendents, two were junior to the Petitioner and two were merely matriculates and others were non-matriculates in respect of their educational qualifications. According to the Petitioner he was not only a matriculate but had more than required experience and he was a successful and efficient Stores Assistant in discharging his duties. He has also averred that his service record was good and there was nothing adverse against him. He has also specifically averred that his superior, the Assistant Controller had recommended his promotion to the higher post of Stores Superintendent. By order dated 31.7.1975, whereby eight of his colleagues were promoted, two of them had superseded the Petitioner and the other two did not possess the required educational qualifications also and the other two were equal in the educational qualifications. According to him he has been arbitrarily discriminated in the matter of his promotion as the Stores Superintendent and grave injustice was done to him at that time. The Petitioner's case has been that he was possessing the required eligibility criteria under the Rules, educational as well as experience and his unblemished service record besides his successful and efficient working. According to the Petitioner he also ought to have been promoted along with the aforesaid eight Stores Assistants by the aforesaid order dated 31.7.75. He is therefore, praying for the said deemed date of his promotion as the Stores Superintendent and the consequential changes in his seniority and the consequential benefits accruing therefrom.

(3.) After the aforesaid first order of promotion dated 31.10.75 was passed, the Petitioner has been pursuing the matter by making several representations placing on record that injustice was done to him and that he be given justice. He has also specifically pointed out that he was holding the charge of Stores Superintendent from 30.9.1975. He made such representation to the Chief Engineer by his letters dated 24.11.75 and 8.12.1975. He received reply from the Respondents by letter dated 13.1.1976 that he lacked required qualifications for the post of Stores Superintendent. Promptly enough by his letter dated 17.1.1976 he again made a representation by way of rejoinder repeating the facts and pointing out that he was equally eligible to be promoted along with others to the post of Stores Superintendent. Meanwhile, there were many other junior officers, who were promoted by superseding the Petitioner. He was again aggrieved by the said action of the Respondents and he again made a representation on 18.9.76 complaining about his supersession by a number of junior Stores Assistants on 28.6.1976. By his letter dated 2.6.76 the Petitioner addressed his representation to the Chairman of the Board. Getting no response he addressed a number of reminders. At last as stated by us earlier in April 1978, he received the desired promotion as the Stores Superintendent. Since then he has been knocking the doors of Respondent no. 1 to get the deemed date and therefore, he made representation on 7.11.78. Subsequently by an order dated 14.6.1979 the Petitioner along with three others was appointed as Stores Superintendent on regular basis. They were appointed earlier on temporary basis. It appears that meanwhile, the select list of the Stores Superintendents was merged pursuant to the provisions of correction slip No. 39 dated 30.1.1976 and the Petitioner was assigned higher ranking in the select list over those Stores Superintendents who were promoted as officiating Stores Superintendents pursuant to their selection on 29.7.75/29.8.75 and 20.3.78 even though the Petitioner was actually selected on 31.1.1978. It appears that the aforesaid correction slip no. 39 was challenged before the Industrial Tribunal which by its award in reference I.D. No. 101 /86 set aside the same. Pursuant to the said award it appears that the Respondent no. 1 issued another correction slip No.178 dated 11.7.86 and it had reverted to the original seniority list as per the directions of the Industrial Tribunal on the basis of the dates on which the Stores Superintendents were promoted in the year 1976 and 1977 over those who were selected on 31.1.78. It further appears that by corrigendum dated 4.4.87 the seniority of those officiating Stores Superintendent selected earlier was restored above the Petitioner and others who were subsequently selected on 31.1.78. It appears that earlier the Board had acted bona fide by giving the Petitioner the deemed date of 1975 but pursuant to the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal the Board had to restore the seniority of the Stores Superintendents on the basis of their respective dates of promotions. The Petitioner having been promoted as Stores Superintendent on 31.1.1978 got his placement in the seniority list in accordance with his promotion on 31.1.1978. The said award of the Industrial Tribunal was not challenged in the higher court and therefore, the Board had to implement the directions given in the said award and accordingly the Petitioner was placed in the seniority list. It appears that the Petitioner was unaware of the award of the Industrial Tribunal and therefore, he has been agitating against the Board to get the deemed date of his promotion from the year 1975. It is an admitted position that the Board had published a seniority list on 31.3.1980 and had given the Petitioner the benefit of his seniority at serial no. 20 above the rank of seniority of the persons who were juniors to the Petitioners in the list of seniority of Stores Assistants who had been promoted to the post of Stores Superintendents by the Board superseding the Petitioner. According to the Petitioner even in the aforesaid seniority list his date of promotion as the Stores Superintendent was shown to be 14.6.1979 while according to him it should have been 31.10.75. Subsequently again the Board had published seniority list on 31.3.1981, wherein the Petitioner was shown at serial no. 15 on the basis of his order of promotion being 14.6.1979. As a result of the implementation of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal the Board had withdrawn its correction slip No. 39 dated 31.1.76 with retrospective effect from 30.6.1976 vide its correction slip no. 178 dated 11.7.76 to General Standing Order 112, whereby the seniority position of some of the Stores Superintendents promoted as Stores Superintendents on officiating basis was restored at appropriate places according to the date of selection and actual dates of promotion. In view of the aforesaid corrigendum dated 1.4.1987 the seniority lists of Stores Superintendents circulated on 31.3.1980 and 31.3.81 and onwards were modified. The Petitioner was shown at Serial No. 29 in the revised or modified seniority list on the basis of his promotion as Stores Superintendent on 31.1.1978. We have carefully perused this modified seniority list which is strictly following the date of selection of the candidates enlisted there and we do not find anything wrong in the said modification pursuant to its corrigendum dated 1.4.1987.