Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 550 (JHR)

Jai Krishna Prasad v. Coal India Ltd.

2003-04-30

TAPEN SEN

body2003
JUDGMENT Tapen Sen, J. 1. Heard Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.M. Bannerjea, assisted by Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The writ petitioner in the instant case has prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus for two reliefs :-- (a) For consideration of his case for promotion from E - 7 to E - 8 Grade with effect from May, 1992; and (b) For consideration of his case for promotion from M- 2 to M-3 Grade with effect from June, 1995. 3. Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner states that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has already superannuated and therefore, in the event of success, the petitioner would be entitled to only monetary benefits. 4. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated as follows : "I further say that the contention of -the petitioner is denied because as per the criteria/methodology approved/ decided by the competent Board the promotion proceedings were carried out by the Selection-cum-DPC by making its recommendation in promotion from E-7 to E-8 grade (Mining) in favour of 140 candidates finalized/approved by the competent authority on 16.6.1991. As per the relevant rules/decision, the panel was drawn in order of merit on the basis of total marks obtained as per the norms. The officer securing in the highest marks was placed at the top of the panel and remaining officer in the descending order according to the marks obtained. And as a result the petitioner was empanelled at Sl. No. 64. Since, the release of promotion order is subject to Vigilance Safety and departmental clearance and availability of vacancies during the validity period of the panel, the promotion orders were released in respect of candidates upto Sl. No. 60 of the panel. Once more it is denied that there was vacancy in E-8 grade Mining during validity period of the panel i.e, upto 16.6.1992. Again the Selection-cum-DPC for promotion from E-7 to E-8 grade had considered the promotion case of the petitioner in December 92 and Shri Prasad was empanneled at Sl. No. 83 out of the total 86 empanneled case. But promotion order could be released only upto Sl. Again the Selection-cum-DPC for promotion from E-7 to E-8 grade had considered the promotion case of the petitioner in December 92 and Shri Prasad was empanneled at Sl. No. 83 out of the total 86 empanneled case. But promotion order could be released only upto Sl. No. 39 against the vacancies available during the operative period of the panel and due to non-availability of the vacancy during the operative period of the panel the promotion could not be released in respect of the petitioner. Thus what appears from the statements made in the counter affidavit is that the case of the petitioner was already considered. 5. Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner however states that in fact the consideration was an irregular and/or an illegal consideration in as much as just three months prior the second D.P.C. which was held in December. 1992 the Reviewing Authority down graded him without communication of any such order as a result of which, instead of his placement at serial number I of the panel, the petitioner was pushed down to serial number 83. According to Mr. Prasad, an adverse entry/down gradation, even if made, was necessary to have been communicated to the petitioner and the same having not been so done and the denial of promotion having been made on the basis of above mentioned down gradation, amounts to an illegality. 6. This Court under Article 226 considering the aforementioned facts, at the threshold cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to promote the petitioner considering the statements made in the counter affidavit. However, if what Mr. P.K. Prasad has submitted is correct, then the action resorted to definitely appears to be irregular and for that purpose, the respondents should reconsider the case of the petitioner and pass an order in accordance with law. 7. Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed off with the consent of the parties and the petitioner is given liberty to file a representation before the respondent No. 3 (Director (Personnel & Industrial Relation), Coal India Limited, Coal Bhawan, Calcutta). Such a representation is to be filed within a period of four weeks from today. This Court is informed that the respondent No. 3 is presently described as Director Personnel, Coal India Limited. Such a representation is to be filed within a period of four weeks from today. This Court is informed that the respondent No. 3 is presently described as Director Personnel, Coal India Limited. Upon receipt of the representation indicated above, the authority dealing with the same shall pass necessary orders in accordance with law without in any manner being prejudiced by any observations made herein. The petitioner having superannuated on 30.4.2001 as has been informed by Mr. P.K. Prasad, this Court expects that the authority indicated above will dispose off the matter with all expedition at his disposal but definitely not beyond a period of six months from the date of receipt of the said representation. This writ petition stands disposed off. No order as to costs.