P.K.SENGUPTA Vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the petitioner is challenging the decision of the respondents -BCCL as contained in the letter dated 15/18th May, 1999 whereby the seniority of the petitioner vis -a -vis respondent No. 5, Smt. Ashoka Gupta has been decided and further for a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for his promotion to Executive Cadre retrospectively with effect from 13.8.1992 when respondent No. 5 was promoted and also to pay consequential benefits thereof.

(2.) IT appears that in 1997 the petitioner filed a writ application being CWJC No. 9 of 1997 making grievance that persons junior to him including respondent No. 5 posted in T&S Grade -B and T&S Grade -A were allowed to appear in the departmental examination but the petitioner was not allowed and the respondents discriminated the petitioner in the matter of promotion in Executive cadre. The said writ petition was finally disposed of on 19.2.1999 by passing the following order : "Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondents, the case is being disposed of at this stage. The petitioners who are employees of respondent -BCCL preferred this writ petition to allow them to appear in the departmental examination for promotion from non -executive to executive cadre for secretarial, ENT, MM and ELP disciplines which was to be held on 12. 1.1997. The case remained pending and the respondent No. 3 was directed to file counter affidavit. The main grievance of the petitioners is that persons junior to the petitioner including one Smt. Ashoka Gupta as T&S Crade -B and then T&S Grade -A staff has been allowed to appear in such departmental examination but the petitioners have not been so allowed. It is alleged that the respondents discriminated the petitioners visa -vis junior Smt. Ashoka Gupta in the matter of promotion to executive cadre. The respondents in their counter affidavit took plea that Smt. Ashoka Gupta was not similarly situated. Impression was given that she was promoted to the post of T&S Grade -A but no such order was issued in favour of the petitioners. On the direction of this Court, the respondents have filed supplementary counter affidavit enclosing therein the copy of order of promotion of Smt. Ashoka Gupta to post of T&S Grade -A vide order dated 13.8.1992. From the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of petitioners, I find that the authorities subsequently issued one order on 27.10.1995 whereby and whereunder the date of promotion of Smt. Ashoka Gupta was shifted back to T&S Grade -A with effect from 1.7.1990. The petitioners have also been promoted to said T&S Grade -A with effect from the same date i.e. 1.7.1990. In the aforesaid circumstances, the seniority is required to be determined on the basis of seniority, as was existing in the next lower post between the parties. On the facts and circumstances, I hold that the matter requires -consideration by the respondents. As Smt. Ashoka Gupta is not a party -respondent before this Court, this Court is not inclined to give a specific finding relating to seniority vis -a -vis, petitioners and said Smt. Ashoka Gupta. The authorities are directed to decide the aforesaid question taking into account the date of appointment/ promotion in the lower grade (T&S Grade -B). If any one or other petitioner is found to be senior to Smt. Ashoka Gupta, his case is to be considered for promotion in executive cadro from the date Smt. Ashoka Gupta was so considered for such promotion. A decision in respect of seniority be taken and communicated to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If necessary, they will hold a special examination for consideration of case for promotion within a period of three months from the date of order relating to seniority.

(3.) MRS . M.M. Pal learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the impugned decision of the respondent as being wholly illegal, arbitrary and whimsical. Learned counsel further submitted that respondent No. 5 was appointed on 16.8.1976 as junior P.V.O. i.e. below the rank of P.V.O. Although the date of entry of respondent No. 5 in Grade -B is 5.4.1988 but she has been given seniority in Grade -B w.e.f. 1.10.1985 which is contrary to law as also contrary to the office order dated 16.7.1982. Learned counsel further submitted that respondent 5 was given promotion illegally as System Officer in Grade -E -2 on 7.12.1988 superseding the right and claim of the petitioner.