Mohan Kumar C.K. Raman and Others vs Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and Others

Paresh Upadhyay, J.—Heard Mr. Mukul Sinha, learned advocate with Mr. Pillai, for the petitioners and Mr. R.H. Mehta, learned advocate for the respondent authorities. By invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed as under:

9B. That this Hon''ble may be pleased to declare, that the action of the Respondent Corporation in denying the benefit of deemed appointment as Rigman (Production) from the date of their appointment as Assistant I Technician (Production) in the Work Over Section of OBG, and subsequent promotions as per the policy of the Corporation from time to time, is illegal, unjustified and discriminatory and direct the respondents to extend such benefits to the petitioners as has been extended to similar employees from time to time.

9C. Alternatively, this Hon''ble Court be pleased to declare that the promotion given to the petitioner to the post of Assistant Driller (Production) would take effect from 1-1-1998 and the petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits including arrears of salary and seniority in the cadre of Assistant Driller (Promotion) and the Respondent No. 2 be directed to act accordingly.

Learned advocate for the petitioners Mr. Sinha has taken the Court through the pleadings and has stated that the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Technician (Production) during 1983 and 1984. Petitioners were deployed against the posts of Rigmen (Production) in the Work Over Section of OBG and were carrying out the work of Rigman (Production) from the date of their appointment as Assistant Technician (Production).

Learned advocate for the petitioners contended that the respondent authorities have given concession to some employees in the matter of promotion and the petitioners should also have been treated by the relaxed standards of rules. It is further contended that the same is denied and that is how the petitioners are aggrieved.

4.1 Learned advocate for the respondents, by referring to the affidavit-in-reply and material annexed therewith, vehemently contended that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. It is contended that by filing the petition, the petitioners are claiming that they should be considered to have been appointed to the post of Rigman with effect from 01.01.1987 (instead of year 1988/89) and further promoted to the post of Topman (P) earlier (instead of 01.01.1994) and thereafter to the post of Assistant Driller (P) with effect from 01.01.1998 (instead of 01.01.2000).

4.2 It is further contended by the respondent that the petition deserves to be dismissed on the sole ground of delay and laches. It is also contended that since the petitioners have accepted their appointment to the post of Rigman in the year 1988-89, that too without protest, at the belated stage, they can not claim preponement of their appointment to the post of Rigman (P) with effect from 01.01.1987 and as such, they can not claim further appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Production-Drilling) with effect from 01.01.1998 instead of 01.01.2000.

4.3 It is further contended by learned advocate for the respondent that in the respondent ONGC, there are various disciplines i.e. Production, Drilling, Engineering, etc. and different criteria are prescribed for appointment and promotion in the respective disciplines. It is also contended that the petitioners have been appointed and promoted in the Production discipline and therefore they can not compare themselves regarding appointments and promotions in different discipline like Drilling. It is also contended that between 1987 and 1990, AT(ROM) were recruited and they were appointed in different disciplines like Drilling and Production. Drilling Assistant Gr.-II (P) and AT(ROM) were appointed in the year 1987-1990 and they were considered for appointment to the post of Rigman (P) on completion of three years services. It is also contended that no junior in category of Rigman (P) has marched over any of the petitioners. It is also contended that after the appointment of the petitioners, neither any one has been appointed in Production Discipline nor has been preponed in any way affecting the petitioners. It is further contended that the petition needs to be dismissed on the sole ground of delay. Reference is also made to the judgment of this Court dated 20.12.2001 in Special Civil Application No. 6299 of 2001 and cognate matters to point out that comparison, which is being made by the petitioners, will not take their case any further.

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the record, I find that the claim of the petitioners is not tenable on more than one counts. Firstly, the petitioners want the clock be set back by years and decades, which can not be permitted. Further, even the prayer itself is suggestive of the fact that what is claimed by the petitioners is not enforcement of some statutory rules but direction against the respondent to retrospectively consider the case of the petitioners as deemed promotion with relaxed standards of rules. Further, it is also not the case of the petitioners that any of their junior has got some benefit which is denied to them. Considering the totality of the facts, in my view, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. I see no force in this petition. The petition needs to be rejected. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.