AMRIT KUMAR KHATONIAR Vs. OIL INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these writ petitions being inter-connected were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

(2.) THE facts that will be relevant to the present adjudication may be noticed at the outset. The writ petitioner in W. P. (C) No. 2058 of 2001, Sri Amrit Kumar Khatoniar, joined as an Executive Trainee in Oil India Limited on 8. 11. 1982. The agitation on the foreigners issue was at its peak in the State of Assam around that time. According to the petitioner (Sri A. K. Khatoniar), the said agitation had affected work in the establishment of the Oil India Limited and in the course of such agitation a large number of Executive Trainees including Sri Khatoniar himself had expressed their difficulties in attending to their regular duties. On 2. 7. 1983, in accordance with clause 15 of the appointment order of the petitioner as an Executive Trainee, his training was terminated leading to the consequential cessation of service. On 15. 8. 1985 the Assam Accord was signed which, inter alia, provided for withdrawal of disciplinary action against all persons whose services were affected on account of the agitation on the foreigners issue. According to the petitioner, in January 1986, as a sequel to the Assam Accord, Oil India Ltd. had offered to reinstate the petitioner as a Trainee by requiring him to complete the balance period of his training. The petitioner refused to accept the said offer of Oil India Ltd. and by his communication dated 22. 1. 1986 demanded that like his colleagues, who had in the meantime been confirmed in Grade-C, the petitioner should also be confirmed in the said Grade. Oil India Ltd. refused to accede to the said demand of the petitioner. While the matter was so situated, on 16. 10. 1990, the Government of India had issued specific instructions to the effect that the period of absence from duty of persons affected by the Assam agitation should be treated as on duty. Thereafter, it appears that on 17. 11. 1990 the petitioner was appointed in Grade-C. The letter of appointment of the petitioner indicates that the appointment was a fresh appointment and that the petitioner would be on probation. However, what must be noticed herein is that the appointment of the petitioner was made on the basis of an application submitted by him on 5. 10. 1990 pursuant whereto he was interviewed on 10. 11. 1990. The petitioner accepted the said appointment and joined service under the Oil India Ltd. on 19. 11. 1990. Thereafter on 7. 12. 1990 the petitioner submitted an application seeking seniority with his erstwhile colleagues. The said representation was followed by another representation dated 13. 12. 1991. By an order dated 24. 2. 1992 Oil India Ltd. , while granting seven advance increments to the petitioner in order to bring his pay to the level of his erstwhile colleagues, rejected the prayer for seniority.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid action taken by the Oil India Ltd. , the petitioner instituted a writ petition being Civil Rule No. 1583 of 1994 seeking seniority in service at par with his erstwhile colleagues of the 1982 batch of trainees; arrear pay from 2. 7. 1983 (date of cessation of service) to 7. 12. 1990 (sic) (date of reappointment) and for other consequential benefits. The said writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this court by judgment and order dated 31. 5. 1996. By the said Judgment and Order it was held that the appointment of the petitioner in Grade-C made in the year 1990 was a fresh appointment effective from the said date and that there is no basis for grant of seniority to the petitioner from any anterior date. Aggrieved by the said order passed in the writ petition filed, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal by instituting a Writ Appeal registered and numbered as Writ Appeal No. 261 of 1996. While the said Writ Appeal was pending before the court, on 3. 6. 1999 the petitioner submitted a letter requesting the authorities of the Oil India Ltd. for an opportunity to explain the entire issue involved to a person to be nominated by the Oil India Ltd. and for an amicable out of the court settlement. In the said communication dated 3. 6. 1999 the petitioner agreed to withdraw the writ appeal filed by him if his case is to be sympathetically considered by the Oil India Ltd. On receipt of the said letter dated 3. 6. 1999 the authority of the Oil India Ltd. informed the petitioner by letter dated 16. 6. 1999 that on consideration of the request made by the petitioner, the OIL authorities are appointing one Dr. P. K. Choudhury as Arbitrator to have a fresh assessment of the case in order to arrive at a settlement. The petitioner was advised to consider as to whether he would deem it appropriate to withdraw the pending writ appeal. Simultaneously with the aforesaid letter dated 16. 6. 1999 the OIL authorities also wrote a letter dated 17. 6. 1999 to Sri P. K. Choudhury informing him of the detailed facts of the case and requesting his consent to act as an Arbitrator. It must be noticed, at this stage, that in the letter dated 17. 6. 1999 the OIL authorities had indicated that it is seeking the 'valued opinion' of the 'arbitrator' appointed, i. e. , Sri P. K. Choudhury. Thereafter, on 2. 8. 1999 the Writ Appeal filed by the petitioner, i. e. , W. A. No. 261 of 1996 was dismissed by the court as withdrawn.