COAL INDIA LIMITED Vs. SUMIT MAJUMDAR & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Coal India Limited (hereinafter referred to as CIL) has preferred the instant appeal against an order dated 13th May, 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.790 of 2014 by which the respondents in the writ petition were directed to grant promotion to the writ petitioner "in terms of the office order dated 22nd December, 2008 along with consequential benefits and back wages but without any interest and also further promotion in terms of the office orders dated 20th September, 2013 and 25th September, 2013 along with all consequential benefits and back wages but without interest".

(2.) Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge erred in law in passing a direct order towards grant of promotion to the writ petitioner, being the respondent no.1 herein, being oblivious of the fact that an employee has no fundamental right to avail promotion save and except a right to be considered for promotion, in accordance with the relevant rules. The learned Single Judge did not take into consideration the provisions of the Common Coal Cadre (hereinafter referred to as CCC) of CIL. Drawing the attention of this Court to the provisions of Clause of 4.7 of CCC pertaining to eligibility norms for promotion, he submits that the promotions of departmental executives are required to be determined step by step according to the channel of promotion subject to minimum qualification and minimum period of 3 years service in a particular cadre. As per Clause 4.8 of CCC for promotion beyond E-3 grade the criteria of promotion would be on merit-cumseniority.

(3.) Placing reliance upon an office order dated 19/27 June, 1979, he submits that an order of promotion can be issued only after a vigilance clearance and the officers, against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending, can only be considered for promotion after completion of the proceedings and complete exoneration from the charges and in accordance with the positions assigned to them in the select list and that pay upon such promotion shall be fixed notionally by allowing the intervening period during which the officers could not be promoted due to pending departmental enquiry and that no arrears would be admissible to such officers. Being oblivious of the said provisions, the learned Single Judge erred in law in directing the appellants to grant promotion to the writ petitioner with all consequential benefits and back wages.