Mohammad Iqbal Khan and others vs State of J&K and others

Petitioners are working as Junior Engineers (Civil / Electric / Mechanical) in J&K State Power Development Corporation. Respondent

corporation does not have its own Rules and Regulations qua promotional matters of its employees. In order to redress grievances of various

cadres of employees of respondent corporation vis-a-vis their seniority, promotions and regularisation, a Committee was constituted vide Order

no.PDC/ 33 of 2016 dated 15th June 2016. The Committee was asked to examine and suggest contours and structure of cadre at different levels

and promotions thereof particularly with respect to the cadres of Assistant General manager (A&F), Junior Engineers, Works

Supervisors/Technicians as the said cadres of respondent corporation have been facing stagnation since long. The Committee was also asked to

examine regularisation of contractual Junior Engineers (Electric).

In its 3rd meeting held on 27th July 2017, the Management and Finance Sub-Committee of respondent corporation, headed by the Deputy

Chief Minister of J&K State as Chairman of the Committee, in which, amongst other decisions, it was decided that relevant H.R. Rules of

respondent corporation be finalised in consultation with Administrative Department and got approved at earliest and not later than ten days from

issuance of minutes of the meeting and thereafter the proposals for promotion be moved. It is this decision, figuring at Item no.3.5 in the minutes of

meeting dated 27th July 2017 (Annexure P-3 to writ petition), of which petitioners are discontented. Petitioners are also aggrieved of various

Agenda Items, prepared by respondent corporation for 73rd meeting of Board of Directors of respondent Corporation, which includes Agenda

Item nos.73.13, 73.14, 73.15, 73.16, 73.18, (Annexure P-6 to writ petition) as also Agenda Items contained in Annexure P-12 to writ petition,

by which promotions have been/are proposed to be accorded in favour of private respondents. Petitioners, on the edifice of case set up, implore

following relief:

(i) Writ of certiorari, quashing decisions contained in Annexures P-2, P-6, and P-12;

(ii) Writ of prohibition, commanding respondents to forbear from giving effect to impugned decisions contained in Annexure P-3 and P-6 favouring

respondents 6 to 21 and also so far as the same order for deferring the promotions of the petitioners till finalisation of approval of HR Policy in

consultation with the Administrative Department;

(iii) Writ of mandamus, commanding respondents to accord consideration in favour of petitioners for their promotion to the posts of Assistant

Engineers by application of the same analogy as done with respect to respondents 6 to 21.

Respondents 2&5, in their Reply, insist that Management and Finance Committee in its 3rd meeting has decided that Human Resources (H.R.

Rules) should be finalised in consultation with Administrative Department and got approved at an earliest. The decision taken by respondent no.4,

as maintained by respondents, is for common good of respondent corporation''s cadres. Drafting and codification of H.R. Rules will streamline the

issue of promotion and in turn will provide an atmosphere for cadre employees to dwell and prosper in their respective fields, the respondents state

in their Reply. It is next maintained by respondents that after meeting of respondent no.4, present petitioners have filed writ petition and this Court

has been pleased to pass an interim order dated 1st November 2017, whereby minutes of 3rd meeting of Management and Finance Sub-

Committee held on 27th July 2017 and Agenda for 73rd meeting of Board of Directors, have been stayed. Respondents also maintain that

respondent corporation will take up the matter of petitioners in next agenda with respondent no.4 for consideration.

Respondents 6 to 14 as well have filed their reply.

I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter.

Before exploring to the controversy involved in the present case, it is pertinent to mention here that Mr R.A.Khan, learned AAG, representing

respondent corporation, has produced a communication bearing no.JKSPDC/Legal/4134 dated 4th December 2017, addressed to him by

Managing Director of J&K State Power Development Corporation Limited, intimating him that the grievance of petitioners was taken up with the

Management and Finance Sub-Committee, which has decided to recommend it to the Board of Directors for its approval and that the minutes of

meeting of the Board of Directors are still awaited. Copy of the said communication has been taken on record.

Given the stand taken by respondent corporation, writ petition is disposed of in the following terms:

The Board of Directors of respondent corporation to conclude and finalise the exercise qua according consideration to petitioner''s grievance

within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, and respondent corporation to consider and decide the case

of petitioners for their promotion to next higher level/posts keeping in view the analogy adopted by respondent corporation in respect of

respondents 6 to 21, within four weeks thereafter. In any case, the petitioners'' claim shall be considered and decided within a period of six weeks.

However, it is made clear that this Court has not uttered any opinion on the merits of the case projected by petitioners or for that matter

contentions raised by respondents. Needless to say, that petitioners, in the event the decision to be taken by respondent corporation is not

favourable to them or not remedying their grievance(s), they will be free to re-agitate the matter.

Disposed of.