Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 251 (JHR)

B. N. Singh v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited

2008-02-29

M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM

body2008
JUDGMENT M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J. 1. The appellants, in this appeal, are the petitioners in the writ petition. Having aggrieved over the seniority list dated 26.7.1995 issued by the Bharat Coking Coal Limited, by which the respondents 6 to 41 have been shown to be senior to the petitioners, while the petitioners and others have been shown junior to the respondents No. 6 to 41, though they have been promoted to the next higher post Grade C on the same day i.e. 20.4.1991, the petitioners filed the writ petition before the single Judge seeking to quash the same. The learned single Judge, after hearing the parties and after perusing the records, dismissed the writ petition by the order dated 2.4.2004. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. The case of the petitioners and the appellants is as follows: (i) The petitioners were appointed in between 1967 and 1975 in the Mines Cadre. (ii) In 1978, the respondents No. 6 to 41 applied for and were selected for the post of Fitter and Welder etc. in Grade D. (iii) Even though the petitioners were initially appointed in the years 1971 and 1972 as Category I Fitter Mazdoor, they reached Category V in 1976-77. (iv) Admittedly, respondents No. 6 to 41 were inducted by means of direct recruitment for which qualification required was metric and ITI. (v) They were appointed in the year 1979 to 1981. (vi) They were placed in the Monthly Cadre of Grade D before formulation of Cadre scheme. (vii)Since respondents No. 6 to 41 were against ex-cadre post, they cannot be inducted under the Cadre Scheme formulated in the year 1985. (viii) Even at the time of appointment to the Grade D post the petitioners raised objection as they want promotion to D cadre. (ix) Ultimately, settlement was arrived at on 20.10.1981 whereby the management agreed that no discrimination between two sets of operators. Category V and Grade D will be made. (x) The respondents No. 6 to 41 are juniors to the petitioners since they were appointed at the later point of time. However, the management issued a seniority list dated 26.7.1995 in which all the cadre and ex-cadre employees have been placed in the same seniority list and the petitioners have been made juniors to respondents No. 6 to 41. (xi) Having been aggrieved over this, the petitioners filed the writ petition. However, the management issued a seniority list dated 26.7.1995 in which all the cadre and ex-cadre employees have been placed in the same seniority list and the petitioners have been made juniors to respondents No. 6 to 41. (xi) Having been aggrieved over this, the petitioners filed the writ petition. (xii) The learned single Judge, holding that the respondents were appointed not on ex-cadre post and rather they were appointed on higher post than the petitioners and as such their seniority list has been correctly prepared on the basis of the final settlement arrived at between the management and other parties. Aggrieved by this the petitioners have filed this appeal. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant would mainly contend that the appellants were appointed in the years 1971 and 1972 as Category I Fitter Mazdoor and after promotion given from time to time, they reached Category V in 1976-1977. Since they were appointed prior to the appointment of the respondents No. 6 to 41, i.e., prior to 1979 to 1981, they were to be declared as senior to the respondents No. 6 to 41. 4. On these points, we have heard counsel for the appellants and the respondents. 5. At the outset, it shall be stated that the contention of the counsel for the petitioners-appellants that the respondents No. 6 to 41 were selected and placed in Grade D in ex-cadre post cannot be accepted as there was no cadre scheme at the relevant time in 1979-80. It is true that the respondents No. 6 to 41 have joined the service after the petitioners, but the respondents were placed on higher post at the time of their appointment because of their higher qualification and experience on selection basis. 6. Initial appointment of the petitioners was either as trainee apprentice or Mazdoor Category I. On the other hand, the respondents No. 6 to 41 were appointed and placed in the monthly Grade D which is much higher than the Category-I. In 1991 dispute was resolved by and between the petitioners and respondents 6 to 41 and thereafter the respondents No. 6 to 41 were promoted to Grade C. 7. It is also noticed that the respondents NO.16.to 41 were writ petitioners before the Calcutta High Court. An amicable settlement was arrived at and on the basis of such settlement, management issued office order dated 16.4.1991. It is also noticed that the respondents NO.16.to 41 were writ petitioners before the Calcutta High Court. An amicable settlement was arrived at and on the basis of such settlement, management issued office order dated 16.4.1991. As per the settlement, followed by the office order, Category VI and Grade D were created to be at par for promotion to Grade C. Respondents No. 6 to 41 were figured at Sl. Nos. 3 to 42 and they were indicated as appointed in Grade D between 1979 and 1980. The appellants and others, whose name figured at Sl. No. 44 onwards came to Category V from 1.9.1975 onwards. Thereafter, the appellants were promoted and posted in Category VI from 10.4.1981 onwards. 8. In the light of the office order dated 16.4.1991, the persons in Category VI/Grade D are to be promoted to Grade C The respondents No. 6 to 41 entered Grade D between 5.5.1979 and 6.5.1980, whereas the appellants have entered equal category only after 10.4.1981. 9. The admitted position is that in the year 1979-80 the respondents No. 6 to 41 were placed in monthly Cadre Grade D whereas appellants were placed at Category V at that time. They were promoted to Category VI only from 10.4.1981, which has been accepted to be at par with Grade D. Though the appellants have been promoted along with respondents No. 6 to 41 on and from 20.4.1991, as indicated above, the appellants have rightly been placed under respondents No. 6 to 41 as the date of entry of the appellants in the equivalent Grade/ Category, i.e. Category VI is after 10.4.1981 whereas the respondents No. 6 to 41 were already been appointed between 5.5.1979 and 6.5.1980. 10. Therefore, we do not find merit in the appeal as we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned single Judge or in the seniority list dated 26.7.1995. This letters patent appeal is therefore dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs D.G.R. Patnaik, J. 11. I agree.