Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1103 (JHR)

Dhananjay Shukla v. Coal India Limited, Kolkata

2009-08-11

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2009
JUDGMENT: By Court Based upon an earlier judgement of this Court dated 20.11.1990 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1094 of 1989 (R) and C.W.J.C. No. 2108 of 1989(R), the petitioners in both these writ applications have demanded that they be given promotion to the post of Engineering Excavation Grade-II from the panel dated 26.05.1988 with effect from 31.05.1988. 2. The respondent Coal India Limited had, in compliance with the order of this Court passed in the aforementioned writ applications, granted promotions to the petitioners from the panel of 1988 but with effect from 22.12.1992. 3. As it appears from the facts pleaded, that earlier, upon being denied their promotions from the due date, the petitioners, together with other similarly situated co-employees, had earlier moved this Court for appropriate directions to the respondent employer. The writ petitions were disposed of with a direction given to the respondent employer to consider the grant of promotion to the petitioners and similarly situated other co-employees, from the selection panel which was prepared in the year 1988 and in the subsequent years. When such order of this Court came to be finally confirmed even by the Supreme Court, the respondent employer had acted upon by way of compliance of the order and had granted promotions to the employees. 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that while other employees who were similarly situated and whose names were contained in the panel of 1988, have been granted promotions with effect from 1988 and some with effect from 1989, the petitioners, on the other hand, have been discriminated and the benefit of such promotions which ought to have been given to them from the panel of 1988 with effect from 31.05.1988 has been denied to them. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent employer. The stand taken by the respondents is that in compliance with the earlier order of this Court, the petitioners have been granted promotion to the higher post from the panel indicated in the order of this Court and since the order did not specify that such promotion be granted on any specific date, the promotions to the petitioners were granted and made effective from a date when it was granted. 6. 6. From the statements contained in the counter affidavit, the petitioners’ contention that similar promotions were granted to other co-employees from the same panel though from the years 1988 and 1989, does not appear to have been specifically denied. The respondents have not indicated as to what was the ground or criteria on the basis of which the date from which the promotions granted to the petitioners have been made effective from 1992 and not from the earlier dates in consonance with that of the other employees who were granted promotions from the same select panel. 7. Considering the above facts, there appears a genuine and reasonable ground for the petitioners to maintain a grievance and to harbour a belief that they have been discriminated in the matter of granting promotion to them from appropriate date. 8. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the respondent authorities are directed to reconsider the case of the present petitioners and take an appropriate decision on the same in the light of their prayer for grant of promotion from the panel list of 26.05.1988, from 31.05.1988 in accordance with the same criteria as applied for the other co-employees who were granted similar promotions from the same panel. Such decision must be taken within two months from the date of this order and effectively communicated to the petitioner. If the petitioners are found entitled to their claim for promotion to the Grade-II from any earlier date than what has been granted to them, then to extend such benefit together with all the consequential benefits thereof to the petitioners accordingly, within a period of two months from the date of decision taken. With these observations, these writ applications are disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the respondents.