Krishna Chouhan vs M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd And Ors

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

Heard Mr. Mahadev Kr. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent-B.C.C.L.

The petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant promotion to the

petitioner in Category-‘D’ w.e.f. the year 1997 and thereby in the Category-‘C’ w.e.f. the year 2004 and the respondent no. 8 was

regularized in the service on 03.07.1996. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner and the respondent no. 8 were regularized under the

services of the respondents as contained in Annexure-3 and respondent no. 8 has been promoted w.e.f. 1997 in Category-‘D’ from the

Category-‘E’. The petitioner is also entitled to the similar relief as the respondent no. 8. He further submits that the respondent no. 8 and this

petitioner were regularized in Category ’E’ in the year 1997 and the petitioner is upgraded in the year 2002 after the delay of 5 years. The

respondent no. 8 again upgraded in Category-‘C’ vide order dated 16.09.2004 but the case of the petitioner was not considered at par by the

respondents. On the basis of these facts learned counsel for the petitioner is also entitled for up gradation in Category-‘C’ from the Category-

‘D’ at par as on the post the respondent no. 8 has been upgraded.

Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the B.C.C.L. draws the attention of this Court to the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition and submits that

the respondent no. 8 Rajdeo Yadav was regularised to the Category-‘E’ on 26.06.1996 and promoted to the Category-‘D’ on 27.10.1997

as he appeared and faced the Departmental Promotion Committee and cleared the same. Whereas the petitioner is not appeared before the

Department Promotion Committee in the year 1997 and therefore there was no question of promotion in Category-‘D’ and subsequently he has

been upgrade in the Category-‘D’. Mr. Mehta argues that since the petitioner has not appeared before the Departmental Promotion Committee

for promotion i.e. why he was not upgraded with effect from the date of up gradation as the respondent no. 8 was upgraded.

This Court finds that the B.C.C.L. has afforded opportunity to the petitioner to appear before the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion

but he choose not appear. Hence, this case needs no interference of this Court.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.