M. Handrasekaran vs The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited, The Deputy General Manager, Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited and The Manager, Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited

D. Hariparanthaman, J.—The Petitioner was appointed as a temporary Draughtsman in Alangulam Cement Factory that belongs to the Tamil Nadu Cement Corporation Limited (in short TANCEM) on 27.12.1980. Further, he was designated as Trainee Draughtsman on 01.07.1982 and thereafter, he was appointed as Draughtsman (VI grade) permanently on 01.07.1983 and as Draughtsman (VII grade) on 01.07.1988. Finally he was redesignated as Foreman on 28.04.1989.

According to the Petitioner, the TANCEM formulated a one time settlement policy, dated 29.01.1987 and as per the policy, the Diploma holders working in TANCEM, who have gained minimum 6 years experience irrespective of the designation, which they were holding were promoted as Senior Foreman. The said policy was implemented up to 01.10.1988. Though the Petitioner joined the services in the year 1980, he was not given the afore-said benefit under the said policy on the ground that his service could be counted only from the year 1983, wherein he was made permanent. As he did not complete 6 years of services from 01.07.1983, he was not granted the benefit under the policy. In the meantime, his juniors were promoted. Finally, he was promoted as Senior Foreman only on 03.08.1997 after completion of 16 years of service.

The Petitioner also states that a settlement u/s 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, was arrived at between the management and the employees on 22.01.2002 to disburse full salary to the workers who have worked as Trainees in the year 1982 as per the arbitration award and as per the direction of this Court in W.P. No. 10842 of 1991. Though the Management was ready to disburse the arrears of salary, the Petitioner requested them to consider him for promotion instead of disbursing his arrears. Hence arrears amount as per the 12 (3) settlement and the orders of this Court were not disbursed to him. He gave up the arrears amount only to get promotion on par with his juniors, who were promoted long back and some of them were working as Assistant Manager (Technical). But, the Petitioner was still languishing as Senior Foreman.

While so, the third Respondent passed the order dated 18.04.2003 promoting him as Senior Foreman (Mech) with effect from 01.10.1988 and also revised the salary accordingly. Further in the same order, the post of Senior Foreman was upgraded as Technical Executive (Mech) with higher pay scale with effect from 01.10.1996. While the pay of Senior Foreman as on 01.10.1988 is Rs. 1600-50-2300-60-2660, the pay scale of Technical Executive (Mech) is Rs. 1820-60-2300-75-3200. While so, all of a sudden, the third Respondent passed the order, dated 27.06.2003 informing that the order of promotion given to the Petitioner by order, dated 18.04.2003 is kept in abeyance until further orders. The TNACEM officer''s association, in which the Petitioner was a member, made various representations to the Respondents. In all the representations, the Respondents were requested to withdraw the order dated 27.06.2003. While so, the impugned order dated 28.12.2005 was passed, in which the promotion given to the Petitioner as Senior Foreman with effect from 01.10.1988 and Technical Executive (Mech) with effect from 01.10.1996 were withdrawn. Hence, the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition to quash the afore-said order, dated 28.12.2005 and for a consequential direction to give promotion as well as monetary benefits as per the order, dated 18.04.2003.

The Respondents have filed counter affidavit refuting the allegations.

Heard the learned Counsel on either side.

Though many grounds were urged on behalf of the Petitioner citing that his juniors were promoted and he was deprived due promotion, I am not going into those matters pertaining to the merits of the case. I am inclined to allow the writ petition on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. Admittedly, the order dated 18.04.2003 granting promotion was cancelled by the impugned order without affording opportunity to the Petitioner. The Petitioner also made various representations seeking to grant benefit under the order dated 18.04.2003. In view of the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court reported in Bhagwan Shukla Vs. Union of India and others, , it is incumbent on the part of the department to hear the Petitioner before passing the impugned order, since the impugned order resulted in serious civil consequences. Admittedly, the impugned order was passed without hearing the Petitioner. Hence, the impugned order is quashed. However, the Respondents are at liberty to pass fresh orders after giving opportunity to the Petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.