Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 25 (JHR)

Prajapati Sharan v. Coal India Limited

2003-01-06

TAPEN SEN

body2003
ORDER Tapen Sen, J. 1. Heard Mr, Anil Kumar Sinha. Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner came to this Court earlier challenging the order of the Director (P and I R) CIL passed on 24th January/4th February, 1997 by which his representation for promotion to the E-3 and E-4 Grade had been rejected. 3. A Single Judge of this Court disposed off the Writ Petition and rejected the contention of the respondents to the effect that the petitioner had been inadvertently promoted to the E-2 Grade. Consequently the order of rejection of the Director mentioned above was set aside and the matter was remanded for reconsideration of the case of the petitioner for promotion to E-3 Grade from his due date and from the date his junior, if any, was promoted. The respondents were restrained from raising any question relating to the standard of diploma of the petitioner, i.e. Diploma in Auto Mobile Engineering. The decision was to be taken and communicated to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of the said order. The aforementioned order of the learned Single Judge was passed on 2.8.1999. 4. Being aggrieved, M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (respondent No. 5 herein) and others filed Letters Patent Appeal vide LPA No. 353 of 1999 (R). A Division Bench upheld the order of the learned Single Judge and observed that the findings arrived at by the Single Judge was justified. Accordingly, the Division Bench did not find any merit in the Appeal and consequently the LPA was dismissed. 5. Being again aggrieved, M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited moved up to the Apex Court vide Special Leave Petition (C) No. 12152 of 2002 and upon hearing the counsels of the parties, the Apex Court also dismissed the appeal on 18.8.2000. 6. After so many attempts when the respondents finally realised that they had no option but to confer benefits as per the order of the learned Single Judge, they passed the impugned orders as contained at Annexure 5 and 6 and this time what they could not have done directly, they have attempted to do so indirectly. 6. After so many attempts when the respondents finally realised that they had no option but to confer benefits as per the order of the learned Single Judge, they passed the impugned orders as contained at Annexure 5 and 6 and this time what they could not have done directly, they have attempted to do so indirectly. So far as the promotion to E-3 grade is concerned, they did confer him notional seniority with effect from 3.8.1994 on the one hand, but on the other, they snatched away financial benefits enuring in his favour from that date and proceeded to say that financial benefits will be given to him with effect from the date he assumes charge on the higher post. 7. Similarly for promotion to the E-4 Grade the respondents conferred seniority with effect from 19.12.2000 and again with the same procedure adopted in relation to the promotion to E-3 Grade, they snatched away valuable rights of the petitioner and , stated that he would be entitled to financial benefits from the date he assumes charge on the higher post. 8. Mr. A.K. Mehta has very strenuously attempted to justify the orders and has stated that since the petitioner had not functioned on the higher post therefore, the question of financial benefits cannot be given to him. 9. This Court is not at all impressed by the aforementioned submission of Mr. A.K. Mehta, although and let It be recorded that Mr. A.K. Mehta has very vehemently argued and has very very strenuously tried to convince this Court that the impugned orders are, in fact, Justified. 10. This is not a case where the petitioner, out of his own volition did not work on the higher post. In fact the promotions should have been given to him normally but he was kept out of these promotions and only when the petitioner initiated the law into motion by moving this Court, and when the judgment was delivered in his favour, BCCL proceeded to file LPA and then also decided to move up to the Apex Court. There was, therefore, no fault on the part of the petitioner and therefore the financial benefits should have been automatically and logically given from the date the promotions were found to be due to him. 11. Mr. There was, therefore, no fault on the part of the petitioner and therefore the financial benefits should have been automatically and logically given from the date the promotions were found to be due to him. 11. Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned Senior Advocate, in support of the aforesaid contention that the petitioner should not be jeopardized because there is no fault on his part, has relied upon the judgment of Union of India v. K.V. Janaki Raman, reported in 1991 (4) SCC 109 . He has further relied upon an unreported judgment of this Court in the case of Mrs. Kiran v. Coal India Limited, delivered on 17.12.2002 in CWJC No. 2280 of 2001 in support of the contention that denial of monetary benefits from the date of promotion is not justified. 12. In view of the reasons given above, this Court is satisfied that that portion of the impugned orders by reason whereof it has been indicated that actual financial benefits will be admissible on and from the date the petitioner assumes charge on the higher post, deserve to be set aside. Accordingly the said portion of the impugned orders at Annexures 5 and 6 are set aside and it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to actual financial benefits with effect from 3.8.1994 and 19.12.2000 respectively (i.e. the dates of promotions to E-3 and E-4 Grades). 13. When the aforesaid order had been dictated, Mr.A.K. Sinha, Senior Advocate for the petitioner stated that even the dates which have been conferred i.e. 3.8.1994 and 19.12.2000 and mentioned in the impugned orders need to be rectified inasmuch as the petitioner is entitled to promotion from earlier dates. Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent disputes this contention. This Court also refrains from making any comments on this last submission of Mr. A.K. Sinha and leaves the petitioner with liberty to move a representation before the appropriate authorities who shall deal with the same in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of a representation which the petitioner should file along with a copy of this order. 14. A.K. Sinha and leaves the petitioner with liberty to move a representation before the appropriate authorities who shall deal with the same in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of a representation which the petitioner should file along with a copy of this order. 14. In view of final conclusion of the disputes which was subject matter of this Writ Application and also in view of the ratio laid down in the Judgment of the Supreme Court as also the unreported, Judgment of this Court indicated above, this Court considers it expedient in the interest of justice to direct the respondents to release the arrears forthwith to the petitioner. 15. With the aforesaid observations and directions this application is allowed. There shall however be no order as to costs.