Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1660 (JHR)

Lal Babu Prasad v. Coal India Limited

2012-11-27

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has come before this court in the year 2006 for consideration of his case for promotion to E-5 Grade with all consequential benefits from the date when similarly situated persons or juniors have been promoted. The petitioner has also sought quashing of the punishment order dated 4.5.1996 (Annexure-1) by which he was inflicted stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. The appellate order dated 13.8.1997 (Annexure-3) passed by the Appellate authority, Chairman- cum- Managing Director, Coal India Limited has also been challenged. 3. According to the petitioner, he was appointed on 21.4.1988 on the post of Junior Executive Trainee (Mining) under the Central Coalfields Limited. In April 1989 he was promoted to E-2 Grade. However, by memo dated 20.6.1992 a charge sheet was served upon him alleging certain misconduct. The inquiry proceeding lingered for 4 years till the order of punishment was passed on 4.5.1996 imposing the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. The petitioner's appeal before the Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Coal India Limited, Respondent No. 2 was rejected on 13.8.1997. According to the petitioner, exercise for consideration for promotion of persons in the zone of consideration including the petitioner were undertaken for promotion from E-2 to E-3 grade vide office order dated 12.11.1993, but on account of pendency of the departmental proceeding no order for promotion of the petitioner was issued. Subsequently, after the punishment ceased to have effected he was promoted vide order dated 21.10.1998 from E-2 to E-3 grade w.e.f. 12.8.1997. However, vide office order dated 3.1.2001persons similarly situated or juniors to the petitioner got promotion from E-2 to E3 grade ignoring his case and subsequently, by office order dated 30.92.004 (Annexure-7) similarly situated persons have been promoted from E-4 to E-5 grade. The petitioner is now aggrieved, as on account of non grant of his promotion due to pendency of departmental proceeding for no fault on his part, promotion could not have been granted in the year 1993 , which was ultimately granted w.e.f August 1997 wrongly and the consequential promotions, thereof been denied to him as a result of that. The petitioner alleges discrimination, arbitrariness on the part of the respondent- authorities. He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in the case of Union of India Vrs. The petitioner alleges discrimination, arbitrariness on the part of the respondent- authorities. He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in the case of Union of India Vrs. J.B. Janki Raman reported AIR 1991 SC 1010 to submit that mere pendency of departmental proceeding should not prevent the respondent from considering his case. In fact as per the ratio of the said judgment, the decision in respect of the petitioner should be kept in sealed cover in 1993 which has not been done. 4. The respondents-C.C.L have appeared and filed their counter affidavit. The respondents stand is that in the promotional exercise conducted in October, 1993 petitioner's case was put up and was also recommended for promotion from E-2 to E-3 in first cluster, but his promotion order could not be released on 12.11.1993 along with his batch mates, as a memo of charge sheet dated 20.6.1992 was pending against him. It is further submitted that after the expiry of currency period of punishment vide order dated 4.5.1996 he was promoted from E-2 to E-3 by C.I.L. Order dated 14.10.1998 with notional seniority and notional fixation of pay w.e.f. 12.8.1997. As such his claim for entitlement for promotion to E-3 grade in the year 1993 is not correct. Respondents have further added that consideration for promotion from E-3 to E-4 requires minimum eligibility for a period of 3 years in E-3 grade which the petitioner did not complete by the cut up date on 30.9.1999 and as such officers under E-3 grade who had completed 5 years in service by the said date were granted promotion to E-4 grade. No junior to the petitioner was granted promotion to E-4 grade as per the orders of promotion dated 19.12.2000. Subsequently, after completing 3 years by the cut of date on 31.3.2004, Mining Executive have been promoted to E-4 and thereby became eligible for next promotion to E-5 grade under cluster concept, which has been granted vide order dated 30.9.2004. Based upon these facts it is submitted that petitioner was not eligible for promotion to E-3, E-4 and E-5 on 1993, 2001 and 2004 respectively. As such the claim of the petitioner is misconceived and after the cessation of the effect of punishment in the departmental proceeding, he was granted promotion to E-3 cadre in 1997. 5. Based upon these facts it is submitted that petitioner was not eligible for promotion to E-3, E-4 and E-5 on 1993, 2001 and 2004 respectively. As such the claim of the petitioner is misconceived and after the cessation of the effect of punishment in the departmental proceeding, he was granted promotion to E-3 cadre in 1997. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties at length and gone through the relevant materials on record including the impugned order. The petitioner, as would appear from the aforesaid sequence of facts was facing departmental proceeding and charge sheet was issued in the year 1992. Although, his case was considered for promotion in the year 1993, but on account of such pendency he was not granted the said promotion. The punishment of 1 year stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect in the year 1996 was also up held by the appellate order vide order dated 30.8.1997. Thereafter, on expiry of currency period of punishment order, petitioner was considered and granted promotion to E-3 grade w.e.f. 12.8.1997 with notional benefits. The requirement for consideration for promotion to the E-4 grade was 3 years and under the promotional exercise held in December, 2000, he had not completed 3 years on the first day of the year falling in 2000 for consideration. Therefore, persons who had completed the said minimum eligibility also were promoted from E-3 to E-4 in 3.1.2001 and again in the promotional exercise of 2004 petitioner could not complete the required eligibility of period of 3 years of the time and rest of the similarly situated persons were considered. Therefore, in the next exercise of promotion also to E-5 grade, the case of petitioner could not be considered. 6. Petitioner's order of punishment was passed in the year 1996 and appellate order affairming the same was passed in the year 1997. The writ petition has been preferred in the year 2006. There is abnormal delay in preferring the writ petition against the action which relates to the year 1993, 1996 and 1997. The petitioner appears to have slept over his right for all these period. Moreover, since he was facing departmental proceeding in the year 1993, respondent-authorities could not have granted promotion, although his case was considered for the same. There is abnormal delay in preferring the writ petition against the action which relates to the year 1993, 1996 and 1997. The petitioner appears to have slept over his right for all these period. Moreover, since he was facing departmental proceeding in the year 1993, respondent-authorities could not have granted promotion, although his case was considered for the same. In the subsequent exercise the petitioner could not complete the minimum time required to consider his case for higher promotion along with other who had completed the said period. Therefore, the next promotion from E-4 to E-5 grade were also not considered for him in the year 2000 and 2004. However, it is informed that later he was granted promotion on completion of eligibility period of E3- and E-4 grade. 7. In the totality of facts and circumstances discussed herein above, petitioner has not been able to make out a case for issuance of writ or a direction under Article 226 of the constitution of India. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.