MAHARASHTRA KRISHI UDYOG VIKAS MAHAMANDAL ADHIKARI SANGHATANA Vs. MAHARASHTRA AGRO INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Returnable forthwith by consent. Heard both sides. This petition has been filed by the Officers Association challenging the action of the respondent-Corporation vide order dated 19-5-2000 cancelling the orders of promotion and upgradation issued in favour of the concerned officers and for further direction that the concerned officers should be allowed to work on their respective posts to which they were promoted/upgraded.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the respondent-corporation is a Government of Maharashtra Undertaking engaged in the business of manufacturing, distribution and sale of fertilizers, agricultural equipments etc. It is the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. The petitioner is an Association registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. All the officers employed in the respondent-corporation are members of the petitioner-union. The present petition has been filed on behalf of 102 officers whose names are mentioned in Ex. A to the petition. The said officers have been working for many years in the middle management cadre and junior management cadre. In the circumstances, the petitioner-association took up the matter with the appropriate authority representing that the officers be either promoted in the posts which were lying vacant and for upgradation of certain junior management cadre to middle management cadre so that the officers would be accommodated in the upgraded posts. The stand taken by the Association was that in the absence of promotional prospects the service was bound to degenerate, for stagnation was bound to mar the desire of the officers to serve efficiently. In response to the said representation, the respondent No. 2, who is in-charge of the management of the respondent-corporation, eventually took decision to promote 15 officers and upgrade 87 posts of junior management cadre to middle management cadre. In the circumstances, 15 officers were promoted and 87 officers were upgraded, pursuant to the said decision taken in May, 1999. All the officers, either promoted or upgraded, were taken on probation for a period of one year from the date of joining the promotional/upgraded posts. The said officers after joining the respective posts worked to the complete satisfaction of their superiors and none of them received any adverse remark. It is stated that all of a sudden, by the impugned order dated 19-5-2000, the orders of promotion/upgradation passed in favour of said 102 officers came to be cancelled. No prior notice or opportunity was given to any of these officers before passing the impugned order. It is in this background that the present writ petition has been filed for the aforesaid reliefs. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in the case of (Raghunath Prasad Singh v. Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar and others), A. I. R. 1998 S. C. 1033 to contend that reasonable promotional opportunity should be available for every wing of public service to generate efficiency in service and foster the appropriate attitude for achieving excellence in service. The petitioner also contends that once the decision to promote/upgrade was taken the same could not have been reversed without giving an opportunity to the officers who were directly affected by such a change. The petitioners have also placed on record that because of the promotion/upgradation there was increase in the salary and over all pay packet of the concerned officers on an average increased by around Rs. 500/- p. m. According to the petitioner the total financial implication of the said decision was only Rs. 6,50,000/- per annum approximately which was insignificant to the total turn over and the profit of the respondent-corporation. The petitioners have also made a grievance that the respondent corporation has discriminated between the employees of the corporation. In as much as, the corporation has granted benefit to one set of workmen of the staff union and has in fact entered into an agreement with the said union that all those workmen who have completed 8 years of service in one grade shall get the benefit of upgradation from 1-4-1990 and the said workmen have been bestowed with the said benefit under the said agreement. On the other hand, the officers of the corporation have not been extended such a benefit, but for the decision taken by the respondent No. 2 Managing Director who promoted/upgraded in all 102 officers. Thus, the case of discrimination has been made out in the writ petition.

(3.) IN response to the petition the respondents have filed reply affidavit of Tarachand Sahebram Tambolia, Deputy General Manager (Admn ). The principal stand taken in the said affidavit is that the promotion/upgradation decision was taken by the respondent No. 2 without obtaining prior approval of the Board of Directors and the Government. In other words, it was contended that the said decision was without authority of law and could not be made binding on the respondent-corporation.