Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 228 (JHR)

Surendra Prasad v. Coal India Ltd.

2009-02-12

D.N.PATEL

body2009
Order Learned counsel appearing for the respondents waives notice on behalf of all the respondents. 2. The present petition has been preferred mainly for the reason that the respondent is denying promotion from E-4 Grade to E-5 Grade. The petitioner is working as Deputy Personnel Manager in E-4 Grade as his promotion has been denying on the ground that vigilance clearance certificate in service was not in existence when the Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C.) held a meeting. The Committee considered the cases of promotion from E-4 scale to E-5 scale. The petitioner's case was not considered, whereas the case of his juniors, were considered and were given promotion to E-5 Grade. 3. It is vehemently submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that nothing was pending as on date of which D.P.C. held a meeting for grant of promotion whatever limited query was there from the concerned authorities against the petitioner was also dissolved upon is mere explanation and therefore at the relevant time he ought to have been given promotion from E-4 to E5 Grade. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court upon Annexure-5 of the Supplementary Affidavit filed by the petitioner. The Annexure-5 of the supplementary affidavit reveals the fact as under:- "Shri Surendra Prasad was not issued any Memo. He was, however, issued an Explanation vide reference No. BCCL/EE/X/C/2005/413 dt. 6.9.2005. The written explanation dated 17.6.2005 submitted by Shri Surendra Prasad having been placed before Director (Pers.), BCCL and on consideration thereof, the case has been treated as closed. It was not a vigilance case. This case was not mentioned against Shri Surendra Prasad while replying to GM(P), CIL's letter No. CIL:C5A(CC):087:74 dt. 25.5.2006." 5. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he ought to have been given promotion from E-4 to E-5 Grade. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respondents who has submitted that, as such, now there is nothing pending against the' petitioner and the respondent has no grievance about the working style nor any misconduct is alleged by the respondent against the petitioner and looking to the Annexure-5 of the supplementary affidavit, he deserves to be promoted to the E-4 to E-5 Grade. 7. 7. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears:- (a) that the petitioner was working as Deputy Personnel Manager in a E-4 Grade with the respondents since long. Unblemish is the service record of the petitioner. He was eligible for the promotion to E-5 Grade. Benefit of Cluster System Promotion from post E-4 to E-5 Grade ought to have given by promotion looking to the Annexure-5 of the supplementary affidavit. (b) that even looking to the Common Coal Cadre Provisions Rules which have been cited in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent specially clause no. 4.13(b), this petitioner is entitled for the promotion from scale E-4 to E-5 Grade. (c) hence, as stated hereinabove, Annexure 5 makes it explicit dear that no charge-sheet was ever received to the petitioner. A mere explanation was asked on 6.6.2005 which was explained by the petitioner, in writing, vide letter dated 17th June, 2005 which was accepted by the Director (Personnel), BCCL. It has been stated categorically that it was not a vigilance case at all. In view of these facts the petitioner deserves to be promoted in E-5 Grade with the back date effect or with retrospective effect. The effect of the promotion of the petitioner deserves to be given from the date of which, his juniors are promoted from E-4 to E-5 Grade. 8. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, I hereby allow this petition and direct the respondents to give promotion to the petitioner from E-4 to E-5 Grade with retrospective effect i.e. the date of which, his juniors have been promoted, to E-5 Grade and I also hereby direct the respondents to fix pay scale of the petitioner in E-5 Grade with retrospective effect. The fixation of pay scale and grant of promotion shall be completed by the respondents not later than a period of eight weeks from receipt of a copy of this order.