PRABHAKAR MADHAV PATHAK Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an employee of the first respondent - Maharashtra State Electricity Board. He joined its service in February 1978 as Security Assistant and at the time of filing of both these petitions he was working in the same post. The first promotion available to this cadre is that of Assistant Security Officer. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the year 1984 he was due for this promotion but he was bypassed. It is his grievance that once again in the year 1989 he was denied this promotion erroneously. The first petition, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus in prayer clause (b) which seeks a direction that his case be reconsidered and he be promoted with retrospective effect from 1984 or alternatively from 29th May, 1989. Respondent Nos. 5 to 15 are the other Security Assistants who are junior to the petitioner and who got the promotions in the batch of 1989 and hence they are joined as respondents. Mr. Dharap has appeared for the petitioner and Ms. Baxi has appeared for respondent No. 1 and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 who are officers of respondent No.1. The other employees who have been joined as respondent Nos. 5 to 15, as stated above, though served, have not engaged anybody to represent them.

(2.) THE petitioner was denied this promotion once again in the year 1990. The second petition seeks this promotion with effect from 11.6.1990 when other junior security assistants were promoted. They are joined as respondent nos. 5 to 9 in the second petition. In this matter also respondent nos. 1 to 4 are the electricity board and its officers who are represented by Miss Baxi. Respondent Nos. 6 and 8 are served, but they have not engaged anybody. Respondent No. 9 is deleted on petitioner's application. Respondent Nos. 6 and 8 are not served and are directed to be deleted. We will deal with this petition later on. WRIT PETITION NO. 2594 OF 1987

(3.) ALTHOUGH , as stated above, prayer clause (b) of this petition makes a grievance about the denial of promotion in 1984. Mr. Dharap has confined himself to the denial of promotion in the year 1989 only. The case of the petitioner is that his record was good and he is denied promotion for no reason whatsoever. On behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4, a reply was filed by one Shri S.K. Dixit, the then Deputy Establishment Officer on 29.6.1989 to oppose admission and later by Shri N.A. Sawant, Deputy Establishment Officer affirmed on 26.11.1996. Shri Sawant pointed out that the record of the petitioner was not good during the period 1983 -84. For that year, it was clearly stated that he was not fit for promotion. In fact, Mr. Sawant has pointed out that in the remark column there is a doubt cast about his integrity related to the habits that he had developed at that point of time. Those adverse remarks were also communicated to him. Hence denial of promotion in 1984 is explained on that basis. As far as the denial of promotion in the year 1989 is concerned, it is pointed out that a complaint had been lodged against the petitioner on 31st March 1986 for claiming travelling allowance upto Kanyakumari by producing false receipts, although it is accepted that later on, the petitioner was acquitted. Yet, it is stated that on an overall consideration of the record of the relevant years it was seen that it was average and, therefore, the petitioner was not considered for promotion. Ms. Baxi, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, has brought to our notice the confidential reports of the petitioner for the years 1985 -86, 1986 -87 and 1987 -88. As far as the year 1985 -86 is concerned, his assessment is high average, however, for the years 1986 -87 and 1987 -88 it is average only. Ms. Baxi submits that the Committee appointed for this purpose considered the overall record of the employee and thereafter came to its conclusion and therefore this Court ought not to interfere therein.