LAL BABU PRASAD Vs. COAL INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has come before this court in the year 2006 for consideration of his case for promotion to E-5 Grade with all consequential benefits from the date when similarly situated persons or juniors have been promoted. The petitioner has also sought quashing of the punishment order dated 4.5.1996 (Annexure-1) by which he was inflicted stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. The appellate order dated 13.8.1997 (Annexure-3) passed by the Appellate authority. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited has also been challenged.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he was appointed on 21.4.1988 on the post of Junior Executive Trainee(Mining) under the Central Coalfields Limited. In April 1989 he was promoted to E-2 Grade, However by memo dated 20.6,1992 a charge sheet was served upon him alleging certain misconduct The inquiry proceeding lingered for 4 years till the order of punishment was passed on 4,5.1996 imposing the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. The petitioner's appeal before the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited, Respondent No. 2 was rejected on 13.8.1997. According to the petitioner, exercise for consideration for promotion of persons in the zone of consideration including the petitioner were undertaken for promotion from E-2 to E-3 grade vide office order dated 12.11,1993, but on account of pendency of the departmental proceeding no order for promotion of the petitioner was issued. Subsequently, after the punishment ceased to have effected he was promoted vide order dated 21.10.1998 from E-2 to E-3 grade w.e.f. 12.8.1997. However, vide office order dated 3.1.2001 persons similarly situated or juniors to the petitioner got promotion from E-2 to E3 grade ignoring his case and subsequently, by office order dated 30.92.004(Annexure-7) similarly situated persons have been promoted from E-4 to E-5 grade. The petitioner is now aggrieved, as on account of non grant of his promotion due to pendency of departmental proceeding for no fault on his part, promotion could not have been granted in the year 1993 which was ultimately granted w.e.f August 1997 wrongly and the consequential promotions, thereof been denied to him as a result of that. The petitioner alleges discrimination, arbitrariness on the part of the respondent-authorities. He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in the case of Union of India Vrs. J.B. Jankl Raman,1991 AIR(SC) 1010 to submit that mere pendency of departmental proceeding should not prevent the respondent from considering his case. In fact as per the ratio of the said judgment, the decision in respect of the petitioner should be kept in sealed cover in 1993 which has not been done.

(3.) The respondents-C.C.L Have appeared and filed their counter affidavit. The respondents stand is that in the promotional exercise conducted in October, 1993 petitioners case was put on and was also recommended for promotion from E-2 to E-3 in first cluster, but his promotion order could not be released on 12.11.1993 along with his batch mates, as a memo of charge sheet dated 20.6.1992 was pending against him. It is further submitted that after the expiry of currency period of punishment vide order dated 4.5.1996 he was promoted from E-2 to E-3 by C.I.L. Order date 14.10.1998 with notional seniority and notional fixation of pay w.e.f. 12.8.1997. As such his claim for entitlement for promotion to E-3 grade in the year 1993 is not correct Respondents have further added that consideration for promotion from E-3 to E-4 requires minimum eligibility for a period of 3 years in E-3 grade which the petitioner did not complete by the cut up date on 30.9.1999 and as such officers under E-3 grade who had completed 5 years in service by the said date were granted promotion to E-4 grade. No junior to the petitioner was granted promotion to E-4 grade as per the orders of promotion dated 19.12.2000. Subsequently, after completing 3 years by the cut of date on 31.3.2004, Mining Executive have been promoted to E-4 and thereby became eligible for next promotion to E-5 grade under cluster concept, which has been granted vide order dated 30.9.2004. Based upon these facts it is submitted that petitioner was not eligible for promotion to E-3, E-4 and E-5 on 1993, 2001 and 2004 respectively. As such the claim of the petitioner is misconceived and after the cessation of the effect of punishment in the departmental proceeding, he was granted promotion to E-3 cadre in 1997.