RAMAN KUMAR Vs. COAL INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M.M. Banerjee, learned counsel for the respondent -Coal India Ltd. and Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent -Central Coalfields Ltd.

(2.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to consider and accord promotion to the petitioner in E -3 and E -4 grade from the date of his eligibility on cluster basis maintaining inter se seniority with all consequential benefits and also to pay arrears of salary since 1.7.1993 to 20.6.1995, 1.8.1996 to 16.4.1998 and 17.4.1998 to September, 1998.

(3.) IN the counter -affidavit filed by the respondents it is stated that petitioner was appointed on 16.5.1985 and was posted at Rajrappa Project of Central Coalfields Ltd. Petitioner was habitual absentee and was on long unauthorised absence from 23.6.1993. A Memorandum dated 30.12.93 was issued to the petitioner for his long absence and after having not satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner, an inquiry committee was constituted. The charges levelled against the petitioner was duly established. Before passing final order by the disciplinary authority, a copy of the inquiry report was duly served to the petitioner vide letter dated 13.8.96. However, petitioner was allowed to join his duty with effect from 12.6.1995, pending finalisation of inquiry vide letter dated 17.6.1995. It is stated that in pursuance of order dated 9.5.1995 passed by this Court in CWJC No. 321/ 1995 (R) respondents after hearing the petitioner passed speaking order on 1.8.95 advising him to properly attend the inquiry proceeding. In spite of the said advice of CMD, CCI, petitioner did not attend the inquiry proceeding and the inquiry 'was proceeded ex -parte. It is stated that as the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved, the respondent Coal India, Ltd. Wide letter dated 16.4.1997 imposed major' penalty of rated moval from service of the company. Howeever, in compliance of the order dated 19.1.1998 passed in CWJC 'No. 4093/96 (R), petitioner was allowed to join his duties and the period of absence of the petitioner was treated as "DIES -NON" with stipulation that he will not be entitled for any benefit of the said period. So far claim of the petitioner for promotion is concerned, it is stated that the promotion of departmental executive is determined on the basis of minimum qualification and maximum period of service in a particular grade as indicated in the respective cadre scheme. Unless otherwise stipulated in the relevant cadre scheme, an executive has to put in a minimum of three years service in a particular cadre before he became liable for consideration for promotion to the next higher grade. It is contended that the services of the petitioner for the purpose of promotion has been counted with effect from 2.4.1998 i.e. the date when the petitioner was allowed to resume his duties with immediate effect without any backwages.