Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 101 (ORI)

ADITYA KUMAR MOHANTY v. INDIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY

2009-02-03

B.P.DAS, R.N.BISWAL

body2009
JUDGMENT : B.P. Das, J. - The Petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to direct the opposite party-Honorary Secretary of Indian Red Cross Society, Orissa State Branch, Bhubaneswar, to consider his case for promotion to the post of Junior Red Cross Officer (Programme Co-ordinator) with higher scale of pay considering his experience in the field. 2. The case of the Petitioner in short is that since 1987 he has been working as a Senior Assistant under the administrative control of the opposite party-Honorary Secretary of Indian Red Cross Society, Orissa State Branch, Bhubaneswar, and since 1.11.1996 he was assigned the work of Junior Red Cross. Even though he was having working experience for 12 years in Junior Red Cross Section and has completed 20 years in the aforesaid post of Senior Assistant against a particular scale of pay, no promotional avenue is available for any higher post. The Petitioner claims that since he was allowed to discharge the work of Junior Red Cross Officer, in June, 2006 a proposal was submitted before the Working Committee of the Junior Red Cross of Indian Red Cross Society, Orissa State Branch, to allow the Petitioner to continue as Programme Co-ordinator, vide Annexure 1. The aforesaid proposal was accepted by the Working Committee of the opposite party-Junior Red Cross, Indian Red Cross Society, Orissa State Branch, in the meeting held on 5.6.2006 as per the proceedings in Annexure-2, and the decision of the Working Committee was ratified by the Executive Committee of the Indian Red Cross Society, Orissa State Branch, in the meeting held on 17.3.2007, vide the proceedings in Annexure-3. According to the Petitioner, in terms of the aforesaid decision, by the office order dated 20.4.2007 issued by the opposite party vide Annexure-4, the Petitioner was allowed to work as Programme Co-ordinator of Junior Red Cross. It is alleged that on 9.5.2008 the Secretary in utter disregard to the aforesaid decisions of the Working Committee as well as the Executive Committee changed the assignment of the Petitioner from the duty of Programme Co-ordinator and assigned some other works. Against the aforesaid action, the Petitioner made a detailed representation to the Honorary Secretary but the same has been rejected, vide the order in Annexure-6. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner has challenged the said order of the Honorary Secretary in this writ petition. Against the aforesaid action, the Petitioner made a detailed representation to the Honorary Secretary but the same has been rejected, vide the order in Annexure-6. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner has challenged the said order of the Honorary Secretary in this writ petition. That apart, the Petitioner has also submitted that as he has already completed 22 years of service as Senior Assistant and has also worked as a Programme Co-ordinator, Junior Red Cross, for 12 years, and there is stagnation in service, a direction be issued to the opposite parties to promote him to the post of Junior Red Cross Officer (Programme Co-ordinator) with higher scale of pay. In this regard the Petitioner has relied upon a decision of the apex Court in the case of Food Corporation of India and Others Vs. Parashotam Das Bansal and Others wherein it was held that where employees working in a body, which is a State under Article 12 of the Constitution, are denied opportunity of promotion for long years on the ground that they fall within a category of employees excluded from promotional prospect, the superior court will have jurisdiction to issue necessary direction to make a scheme regarding promotion. The sum and substance of the of the allegation of the Petitioner is that once he was allowed to work as a Programme Coordinator in terms of the decision of the Working Committee of the Junior Red Cross in its resolution dated 5.6.2006 vide Annexure-2, which was ratified by the Executive Committee of the Indian Red Cross Society, Orissa State Branch, as per the proceeding of the meeting held on 17.3.2007, vide Annexure-3, the order dated 20.4.2007 issued by the Honorary Secretary of Orissa State Branch vide Annexure-4 not allowing the Petitioner to work as such is illegal, without jurisdiction and not sustainable in law. 3. The opposite parties have filed a counter affidavit stating, inter alia, that there is no post of Programme Co-ordinator in Junior Red Cross Society; the sanctioned posts are of Senior Assistants and other posts; the Petitioner continued in his basic appointment as Senior Asst. and for effective co-ordination with different public bodies, his post was designated as Programme Co-ordinator. 3. The opposite parties have filed a counter affidavit stating, inter alia, that there is no post of Programme Co-ordinator in Junior Red Cross Society; the sanctioned posts are of Senior Assistants and other posts; the Petitioner continued in his basic appointment as Senior Asst. and for effective co-ordination with different public bodies, his post was designated as Programme Co-ordinator. There is no denial so far as the decision of the Working Committee of the Junior Red Cross regarding acceptance of the proposal for change of designation of the Petitioner and the ratification of the said decision by the Executive Committee of the Indian Red Cross Society. According to the opposite parties, for administrative convenience and necessity, decision was taken to make certain change in the administrative set up for which the Secretary of the Indian Red Cross Society, Orissa State Branch, issued the office order on 7.5.2008 directing the Petitioner to remain in charge of the establishment fund-raising, enrolment, confidential matter, annual report, etc. and Sri N. Prusty, Senior Asst. to work in the Youth Red Cross. It is further stated that the representation made by the Petitioner against change of his designation was considered and disposed of vide Annexure-6. It is further indicated in the counter affidavit that the Petitioner was originally appointed as a Diarist-cum-Despatcher and he got promotion to the post of Senior Assistant in course of his employment. According to the opposite parties, the Indian Red Cross Society is a very small institution and it thrives only on very small assistance received from the Govt. and most of the funds are voluntary contributions for which it is very difficult on the part of the Indian Red Cross Society to meet the different emergency measures which they have to undertake in case of natural calamities and other situations which require their intervention. The sum and substance of the stand of the opposite parties is that there is no sanctioned post of Programme Co-ordinator and the Senior Asst. was designated as the Programme Co-ordinator only for the effective implementation of the project and there is no higher scale of pay prescribed. Further, in the office order dated 20.4.2007, Annexure-4, it has been clearly stated that the Petitioner, who was working in the Junior Red Cross Section, was designated as Programme Co-ordinator, Junior Red Cross, without any financial implication to facilitate programme implementation. Further, in the office order dated 20.4.2007, Annexure-4, it has been clearly stated that the Petitioner, who was working in the Junior Red Cross Section, was designated as Programme Co-ordinator, Junior Red Cross, without any financial implication to facilitate programme implementation. That apart, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the opposite parties that Senior Assistant is a Class III post and the next higher post is Junior Red Cross Officer the qualification for which is Graduation, which the Petitioner does not possess. 4. Let us have a look at Annexure-1. Only a part of the document has been annexed which shows that proposal was made to change the designation of the Petitioner from Senior Assistant to Junior Red Cross Co-ordinator without any change in his scale of pay. Annexure-2 is the proceedings of the meeting of the Working Committee of the Junior Red Cross held on 5.6.2006, and under item No. 9, it has been stated thus: Item No. 9 - Any other matter with the permission of the Chair xxx xxx xxx The Honorary Secretary informed the committee that since 1996 Sri A.K. Mohanty, Sr. Asst is working in JRC section. He is actively associated in coordinating all the programmes of the Junior Red Cross. In order to coordinate and manage the programmes he has to deal with both district and state level officials. Effective co-ordination and implementation can be ensured if he is designated as Programme Coordinator, Junior Red Cross without any financial implication. The committee accepted the suggestion. Annexure-3 is the proceeding of the meeting of the Executive Committee of the Indian Red Cross Society, Orissa State Branch, held on 17.3.2007, in which under item No. 5 the decisions taken by the Working Committee, Junior Red Cross, in the meeting held on 5.6.2006 including the decision in relation to the Petitioner, were ratified. 5. The aforesaid Annexures would go to indicate that decisions had been taken only to change the designation of the Petitioner and no decision had been taken to give any promotion to the Petitioner or for enhancement of his scale of pay. 6. The Petitioner while continuing as Senior Assistant was given certain assignment and the change of such assignment does not in any manner affect his scale of pay. 6. The Petitioner while continuing as Senior Assistant was given certain assignment and the change of such assignment does not in any manner affect his scale of pay. On perusing Annexures 1, 2, 3 and 4 and after hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we do not find any justification to direct the opposite parties to make a scheme for promotion of the Petitioner on the allegation that the Petitioner has been stagnated in the post of Senior Assistant. The opposite party-organization is an international voluntary humanitarian organization and it is true that it thrives on the contributions made by different bodies as well as the Government. It is within the domain of the opposite party-organization to decide regarding creation of the post and promotion of its own employees. The order passed in Annexure-5 rejecting the representation of the Petitioner does not call for any inference as the same is neither illegal or arbitrary. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed having no merit. Consequently, the interim order passed in the case stands vacated. R.N. Biswal, J. 7. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed