Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 883 (JHR)

R. N. Dwivedi v. Chairman Coal India Ltd.

2003-07-24

M.Y.EQBAL

body2003
JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate direction upon the respondents to restore inter se seniority in the gradation list of integrated seniority of the Executives of E-1 to E-5 grades discipline wise treating the petitioners seniority intact even after transfer from BCCL to CCL and further for a direction to promote the petitioner along with his juniors in E-5 Grade and to pay the consequential benefits. 2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass :-- The petitioner joined Coal India Limited as Junior Executive Trainee (Civil) in the year 1976 and was promoted time to time in different higher grades. The petitioner was promoted as Executive Engineer and then to senior Executive Engineer in 1987. In the year 1988 the petitioner made a representation to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited on 15.01.1988 with the request to transfer him from BCCL to NCL or CCL. The Coal India Limited through its, Deputy Chief Personnel Manager by letter dated 18.04.1988 informed the petitioner about the inability of the Company to transfer him. 3. Petitioners case is that because of his ailing mother he had requested for his transfer but when the respondent-CIL expressed its inability to transfer him, the petitioner fully compromised with the rejection order. However, all of a sudden, by office order dated 1.9.1989 the petitioner was transferred from BCCL to CCL on the condition that he will not claim any seniority. The petitioner joined the transferred post and filed objection regarding the condition put by the respondents on his transfer from, BCCL to CCL. Petitioners case is that impugned transfer from BCCL to CCL was not made on the application of the petitioner and, therefore, question of losing seniority does not arise at all. 4. I have heard Mr. V.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. M.M. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 5. Admittedly in 1988 the petitioner represented to the CIL for his transfer on the ground of his ailing mother. In the said representation he agreed to accept the Companys Rules in the event he is transferred from one subsidiary to another subsidiary. M.M. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 5. Admittedly in 1988 the petitioner represented to the CIL for his transfer on the ground of his ailing mother. In the said representation he agreed to accept the Companys Rules in the event he is transferred from one subsidiary to another subsidiary. The letter dated 18.04.1988 referred to hereinabove, by which it is alleged that the petitioner was informed about the rejection of his representation is an internal communication between the Personnel Manager and the Deputy Chief Personnel Manager. It appears that even after the aforesaid internal communication the petitioner pursued his representation which is evident from the letter dated 10.06.1989 whereby the Director Personnel BCCL was requested to send the appraisal dossier in respect of the petitioner for considering his case for transfer from BCCL to CCL. It is also not in dispute that after the aforesaid order of transfer was issued the petitioner joined the transferred post without raising any objection to the condition put in the transfer order that he will not claim any seniority. As the transfer was made at the request of the petitioner, it was clearly mentioned in the said transfer order that the seniority of the petitioner in E-4 Grade will be reckoned from the date he joins in Central Coalfields Limited. In that view of the matter, 1 am of the opinion that the relief sought for by the petitioner claiming inter se seniority cannot be granted. 6. Mr. V.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that even if the case of the petitioner is treated as request transfer, in case of his future promotion the past experience of the petitioner has to be considered. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel. In my opinion also the past experience of the petitioner in BCCL has to be considered while considering the case of the petitioner for his further promotion but having regard to the facts of the case the claim of the petitioner of inter se seniority cannot be allowed. 7. With the aforesaid observation this writ application is dismissed.