AMIYA KUMAR CHANDRA Vs. COAL INDIA LIMITED, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, DIRECTOR, (PERSONNEL AND I.R.), COAL INDIA LIMITED, GENERAL MANAGER (PERSONNEL), COAL INDIA LIMITED AND MR.TAPAN SARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER had prayed for a direction upon respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to consider his case of promotion and place him in the seniority list above the respondent No. 4 with all consequential benefits.

(2.) MR . Kumar, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that petitioner has since retired on 31st January, 2001 and therefore if the petitioner is placed above respondent No. 4 in the seniority list he can get only monitory benefits. He further submitted that petitioner was always senior in E -3, E -4 and E -5 grade but by order dated 23rd April, 1997 (Annexure -9), respondent No. 4 (and one Mr. B.N. Samanto) were given notional seniority /notional pay fixation in M -1 grade w.e.f. 29.3.1996 on the ground that on that date their immediate junior was promoted to M -1 grade. He further submitted that petitioner made several representations but no reply was received from the respondents on the same and therefore he was compelled to file this writ petition. He submitted that justice has not been done between the petitioner and respondent No. 4. He pointed out that admittedly respondent No. 4 was transferred to CIL Headquarter from Dankuni Coal Complex (DCC) in May, 1988 then how by order dated 11.1.1996, passed by Coal India Limited, he was absorbed w.e.f. 9.12.1987. He further submitted that mentioning A in the last of the letter number, shows that the letter dt. 11.1.1996 was inserted later on. Mr. Das, in reply, submitted that even if it was a mistake it was inconsequential so tar as seniority between petitioner and respondent No. 4 is concerned. Mr. Kumar referred to the office order dated 23.3.1992, issued by the Coal India Limited (Annexure -15) and submitted that a decision was taken in the 4.7th Meeting of the Directors (Pers) held on 28th August, 1991 at CIL Hqrs., Calcutta that the Moderation Committee will examine the CRs for a period not exceeding five years prior to the date of representation. Mr. Kumar submitted that from 1.4.1993, admittedly global seniority list was prepared and respondent No. 1 was only competent to consider the cases of promotion but it is not known how Eastern Coal Fields Limited vide office order dated 15.9.1993 awarded notional seniority/fixation in E -3 grade w.e.f. 8.9.1984 to respondent No. 4 and apparently on such notional seniority, he was granted E -4 grade also w.e.f. 3.4.1989. To this, Mr. Das replied that Subsidiary Companies were entitled to consider the cases up to 5 years prior to the date of representation and it is not clear as to when respondent No. 4 made representation on the basis of which the said order dated 15.9.1993 was passed. Mr. Kumar further submitted that a Review Departmental Promotion Committee was specially held to consider the case of respondent No. 4 and one Mr. B.N. Samanto. Mr. Das submitted that such Review Committee was held on the representation of respondent No. 4 and Mr. D.N. Samanto and it was found that they both were entitled to seniority in M1 Grade. According to the panel prepared by the Selection Committee, it was found that case of one Mr. J.G. Jha was similar to Mr. Samanto and respondent No. 4 and thus they were given notional seniority in E -5 grade w.e.f. 6.8.1992. As such they came in the zone of consideration and were declared senior whereas the petitioner was given seniority in E -5 grade w.e.f. 12.11.1993.

(3.) FROM the facts and circumstances, noticed above, it appears that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have tried to support their orders passed with regard to respondent No. 4, but they are not in a position to satisfy this Court about the claim of petitioner vis a vis respondent No. 4. It is also not brought on record by the parties as to whether petitioner was considered in the Departmental Promotion Committee, which was to be held between October, 1997 and March, 1998 and thereafter. Thus, it appears to me that the case of the petitioner vis -a -vis respondent No. 4 has not been considered by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 either by passing order on the representation of the petitioner or in the counter affidavit. In such circumstances, it is not possible to decide the claim of the petitioner. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the Chairman, Coal India Limited (respondent No. 1). However, this order will not. prejudice the parties. Petitioner will file a detailed representation within six weeks from today. Respondent No. 1 will consider his claim of seniority vis -a -vis respondent No. 4 and dispose of the same in accordance with law by passing a reasoned order (after hearing the petitioner if he claims to be heard in support of his representation), within three months from the date of receipt of such representation. With these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. However, there will be no order as to costs.