KIRAN Vs. COAL INDIA LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question that falls for consideration in this writ application is whether denial of monetary benefits to the petitioner while giving to the petitioner the retrospective promotion with notional seniority is justified?

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Welfare Officer in 1985 in E -1 grade and, thereafter, he was given promotion to the next higher grade and lastly in 1997 she was promoted to the post of Dy. Personal Manager in E -IV. After completing three years of experience in E -IV grade she became entitled to promotion in E -V grade. The promotion to E -V grade is under the cluster concept which was introduced by Coai India Limited in 1993 whereby and whereunder it was resolved that promotion from E -IV to E -V grade within cluster concept would be time bound and automatic on completion of stipulated period as per Common Coal Cadre. However, by office order dated 20.3 2001 many persons in E -IV grade who were juniors to tbe petitioner, were given promotion but the petitioner was deprived of her legal right and her case was kept in a state of suspended lamination. The petitioner then represented before the Management of the respondents and she came to know that she was not given promotion on the ground that a vigilance case is contemplated against her. The petitioner then filed the instant writ application challenging the authority of the respondents to debar her from being promoted to E -V grade.

(3.) RESPONDENTS case is that as per the provisions of Common Coal Cadre applicable to the Executive cadre employees of Coal India Ltd. and its subsidiaries all promotion orders are issued only after obtaining vigilance clearance from the subsidiary companies where the recommended Executives are posted. While furnishing vigilance clearance in respect of the recommended Executives of Central Coalfield Limited by the departmental Promotion Committee including the petitioner it was intimated to Coal India Limited by CCL vide letter dated 27.3.20C1 that a disciplinary proceeding for major penalty has been contemplated against the petitioner in the vigilance case. Hence the Petitioner was not entitled to promotion to E -V grade from the date her batch -mates were promoted Le. on 22.3.2001. It is stated that on closure of the case pending against the petitioner and after vigilance clearance the petitioner was promoted to the post of Personal Manager in E -V grade with notional seniority and notional fixation of pay without any financial benefits as per the rules.