AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.
The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for grant of following reliefs:
a) The respondents be directed to give effect to the promotion order dated 31.01.2008 and to pay the scale of the Sr. Security Inspector promotion
post w.e.f. 31.03.2008 within a stipulated period.
b) The respondents be directed to pay all retiral dues in the scale of Rs.7824-12,054 for which he is entitled in pursuance to his promotion order dated
31.03.2008.
c) The respondents be directed to pay all promotional benefits to the petitioner for the post of Senior Security Inspector in pursuance to his Promotion
order dated 31.03.2008.
d) The respondents be directed not to discriminate the petitioner and to extend all the benefits of his promotion order dated 31.03.2008 at par with the
other similarly situated persons.
e) The respondents be directed not to sit tight over the matter and to pay the scale meant for the post of Sr. Security Inspector to the petitioner w.e.f.
31.03.2008.
The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner was appointed as category-I Mazdoor on 07.08.1972 and was posted at Dhori
Colliery. In the year 1973, he was promoted to the post of ""Security Guard"" and in the year 1976 he was transferred Kargali Colliery to the post of
Arms Guard"". In the year 1983, he was transferred and posted at J.N. Project Singroly Area, CCL (M.P) as ""Assistant Security sub-Inspector"" and
again in 1986-87 he was transferred at Dhori Colliery from where he was transferred at Sirka Colliery and then to Argada Colliery to the post of
Security Inspector"".
The case of the petitioner is that when he was posted at Argada Colliery, he was promoted to the post of ""Senior Security Inspector"" in the pay
scale of Rs.7824-12,054 of NCWA-VII and was posted at Kuju Area. As many as 4 Grade-A officials including the petitioner were promoted to the
post of Senior Security Inspector Gr. A vide same promotion order dated 31.03.2008. In the said promotion order it was mentioned that the promotion
would be subject to confirmation that no disciplinary case is either pending or contemplated against any of them and their inter-se-seniority will remain
in the same order as per approved panel in respect of their joining to the new assignment. The said promotion order has been annexed as Annexure-1
to the writ application. On 15.07.2008, an order was issued to release him to join his promotional post at Kuju Area. However, pursuant to the order
dated 15/16.07.2008 issued by the Personnel Manager, the order of promotion dated 31.03.2008 was kept in abeyance. However, the other persons
who were also promoted along with the petitioner vide the same promotion order were relieved from their respective post to join their promotional post
and therefore, the petitioner filed a representation.
Mrs. M.M. Pal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the promotion order dated 31.03.2008 was never cancelled and arbitrarily the
petitioner was not relieved to join the promotional post. She further submits that a further promotion order was issued on 30.04.2012 for promotion to
the same post of Senior Security Inspector but this time also, the petitioner was not released from the present post of posting and then also the
petitioner made representation requesting for joining to his promotional post of Senior Security Inspector. She further contended that in the counter
affidavit the respondent has taken a new plea that only because of pendency of departmental enquiry, the petitioner was not allowed to join the
promotional post as such, they have taken a contrary stand in the counter affidavit to justify their illegal action. She further submits that all the
departmental proceedings in respect of 4 charge sheets dated 09.05.2005, 14.08.2006, 01.10.2007 and 21.05.2007 have been finalized in favour of the
petitioner but he has not been given any benefit of the promotion. She contended that as per the settled proposition of law as held in the case of Union
of India versus K.V. Jankiraman and others reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109, after his exoneration from all the charges the petitioner will be entitled for
his promotion retrospectively from the date when the promotion order was issued i.e. on 30.04.2012 and the same was kept in abeyance.
Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel for the Respondents-CCL reiterated the stand mentioned in the counter affidavit however, he fairly admitted that
the petitioner has been exonerated form all the charges as such, he may file a fresh representation before the Respondent No.2 with regard to his
grievance and the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record in my considered opinion since the
petitioner has been exonerated from all the proceedings, he will be governed by the principal as laid down in the case of K.V. Jankiraman(supra). In
this regard paragraph-34 of the said judgment is reproduced herein below:
Para-34. In this case, the respondent-employee's case was considered for promotion by the DPC in August 1982. However, the result was kept in a
sealed cover in view of the pending disciplinary proceedings against him. According to the employee, on October 11, 1985 the disciplinary proceedings
ended in complete exoneration. Thereafter, a DPC was again constituted in March 1986 which, after consideration of the employee's case,
recommended him for promotion w.e.f. July 26, 1986. This was obviously contrary even to the instructions contained in the Memorandum. He was
entitled to promotion from the date his immediate junior was promoted in or after August 1982 if he was in August 1982 found fit for promotion by the
DPC. The Tribunal has, therefore, rightly directed the appellant to open the sealed cover and if the DPC in 1982 had found him fit for promotion, to
give him the promotion from the date on which his immediate junior was promoted. However, while doing so, the Tribunal has also directed arrears of
salary to be paid for intervening period along with all consequential benefits. Since we have held disagreeing with the decision of the Full Bench of the
Tribunal that the benefit of the arrears of salary will not flow automatically but will depend upon the circumstances in each case, we modify the said
order to the extent it directs the payment of arrears of salary, and direct the appellant-authority to consider whether the employee in the circumstances
of the case was entitled to any arrears of salary and to what extent. The authority will, of course, give reasons for denial of the whole or part of the
arrears of salary. The appeal is, therefore, allowed partly with no order as to costs.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and looking to the contentions of the parties, I hereby dispose of the instant writ application with a
direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representation raising his grievance of promotion w.e.f. 30.04.2012 before the respondent No.2. If any such
representation is filed, the same shall be disposed of by a speaking order in accordance with law and in the light of the judgment passed in the case of
K.V. Jankiraman (Supra) within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of the representation.
With the aforesaid directions, the instant writ application is allowed and disposed of.