RAJU DIDAR SINGH GILL Vs. COAL INDIA LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The executives of Coal India Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'CIL') have prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to cancel the promotion order dtd. 27/8/2021 and to prohibit the respondent from giving any effect to the revised promotion policy dtd. 5/11/2020 for filling up of vacancies in E-7 grade that arose in 2019 and 2020 for the eligibility cut-off date of 30/9/2020.

(2.) The petitioners are the executives working in mining discipline in the E6 grade in various subsidiaries of CIL. The petitioners claim that they are all eligible for promotion to E7 grade. The petitioners further claim that the promotion of the petitioners from E6 to E7 grade was governed by the promotion policy dated 3rd/5th of May, 2011 which was subsequently amended vide Office Order dtd. 23/7/2019. The petitioners claim that in violation of the common coal cadre, CIL did not conduct Departmental Promotion Committee (for short 'DPC') for the cut-off date 30/9/2020 at the stipulated time. On 5/11/2020 CIL introduced a new policy for promotion of executives up to E8 grade wherein the marking system and criteria of obtaining the maximum score for length of service was changed. In terms of the new promotion policy the executives working in E6 grade for only seven years was entitled to maximum marks of 25. The petitioners claim that the CIL conducted a DPC in August, 2021 for filling up vacancies in E-7 grade that arose in 2019 and 2020 for the cut-off date of 30/9/2020 in accordance with the new policy. The petitioners state that CIL issued a promotion order on 27/8/2021 whereby the vacancies existing and declared as on 30/9/2019 and 30/9/2020 have been partly filled up by the private respondents. Being aggrieved by the said promotion order dtd. 27/8/2021, the petitioners have approached this Court.

(3.) Mr. Majumdar learned advocate representing the writ petitioners contended that CIL issued an Office Order dtd. 5/5/2011 (for short 'the old policy') laying down the guidelines for promotion of executives from E6 to E7 grade. He contended that as per the said Office Order such promotion shall be based on merit cum seniority by paper DPC. He further contended that the said Officer Order provides the cut-off date for eligibility to be 30th of September of every year. By referring to Office Memorandum dtd. 10/4/1989 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (for short 'DoPT'), Mr. Majumdar contended that such Memorandum stipulates that a vacancy shall be filled up in accordance with the recruitment rules in force on the date of vacancies unless rules made subsequently have been expressly given a retrospective effect. Mr. Majumdar drew the attention of this Court to the new guidelines for promotion of executives dtd. 5/11/2020 and contended that such guidelines have not been given any retrospective effect. Thus, according to Mr. Majumdar, CIL ought to have filled up the vacancies existing and declared as on the eligibility cut-off date 30/9/2020 by applying the guidelines contained in the Office Order dtd. 5/5/2011. Mr. Majumdar further referred to the schedule for holding meetings of DPCs as laid down in the promotion procedures. By referring to Clause 4.5.(D) thereof he contended that the DPCs for promotion of executives in mining discipline has to be convened in the month of September each year. Mr. Majumdar contended that the accrued right of the writ petitioners for promotion to E7 grade in terms of the old rules was taken away by way of amendment of the rules. Mr. Majumdar further contended that the eligibility cut-off date pertaining to the vacancies of the year 2020 was 30/9/2020 and since at that relevant point of time the old promotion policy was in operation, CIL was bound to fill up such vacancy only in terms of the old promotion policy. In support of such contention Mr. Majumdar placed reliance upon a judgment dtd. 12/1/2017 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in a batch of appeals, the lead case being AST 83 of 2016 in the matter of Kajal Datta Ray and ors. vs. Anil Kumar Joshi and ors.