Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 769 (GAU)

Pradip Namosudra v. State of Assam

2014-08-05

UJJAL BHUYAN

body2014
JUDGMENT Ujjal Bhuyan, J. 1. Heard Ms. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Guwahati Municipal Corporation. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to promote/upgrade him from the post of Mazdoor to the post of Pipe Fitter in the Water Works Branch of Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC). 2. Case of the petitioner is that he belongs to Scheduled Caste community and in the year 1991 he joined GMC as Mazdoor on muster roll basis. Ultimately, service of the petitioner was regularized as Mazdoor in the Water Works Branch of GMC by order dated 15.6.1996 with effect from 1.3.1996 issued by the Commissioner, GMC following approval of GMC in its meeting held on 27.05.1996. Since 1996 petitioner is serving as Mazdoor without a single promotion though he is in the said post for almost 18 years now. Workers similarly placed like the petitioner were promoted/upgraded in the Water Works Branch of GMC by order dated 16.12.2000 issued by the Commissioner, GMC. Some were upgraded as Skilled Gangman, some as Assistant Pipe Fitters, whereas some as Fitter Operator and others as Valve Regulator. By a recent order dated 14.5.2013 issued by the Commissioner, GMC, 4 Assistant Pipe Fitters have been promoted to the post of Pipe Fitter. In that process, case of the petitioner was ignored and he was not considered for promotion. Accordingly, with the grievance that case of the petitioner was repeatedly overlooked, petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking the relief as indicated above. 3. This Court by order dated 15.11.2013, while issuing notice, passed an interim order directing that one post of Pipe Fitter in the Water Works Branch of GMC shall be kept vacant 4. Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have filed a common affidavit. It is contended that service of the petitioner was regularized vide order dated 15.6.1996 with effect from 1.3.1996. Regarding other contentions of the petitioner, respondents have offered no comment 5. Thus contention of the petitioner that he has been unjustifiably denied promotion has not been denied. 6. What therefore transpires from the materials on record is that the petitioner is working as Mazdoor in GMC for almost 18 years. Regarding other contentions of the petitioner, respondents have offered no comment 5. Thus contention of the petitioner that he has been unjustifiably denied promotion has not been denied. 6. What therefore transpires from the materials on record is that the petitioner is working as Mazdoor in GMC for almost 18 years. During this long period of 18 years, he has not been offered a single promotion or any service incentive by way of career advancement 7. On a query by the Court, learned Standing Counsel submits that no service rule has been framed for the subordinate staff of GMC. 8. The Supreme Court has held in a number of cases that an employee is recruited by the employer of an organization for a whole career and it is the duty of the employer to ensure that the employee does not suffer stagnation in service which may have an adverse effect on the administration of the organization itself. The Apex Court has held in Council of Scientific and Industrial Research & Anr. v. K.G.S. Bhatt & Anr reported in (1989) 4 SCC 635 that an organization does not hire a hand but engages/employs a whole man. A person is recruited not just for a job but for a whole career. Therefore, every management/organization must provide realistic opportunity to its employees for promotion. 9. In Union of India v. Hemraj Singh Chouhan & Ors. reported in (2010) 4 SCC 290 , it has been held by the Supreme Court that it is an accepted legal position that the right of eligible employees to be considered for promotion is virtually a part of their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The guarantee of a fair consideration in matters of promotion under Article 16 virtually flows from the guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 10. That being the position, duty is cast upon the GMC authority, which is an instrumentality of the State, to discharge its legal and constitutional obligation by ensuring that the employees do not suffer from service stagnation and that periodical review of career advancement of the employees is undertaken. In the case of the petitioner, from what can be gathered from the materials on record, there has been a failure on the part of the GMC authority in considering the case of the petitioner for promotion. 11. In the case of the petitioner, from what can be gathered from the materials on record, there has been a failure on the part of the GMC authority in considering the case of the petitioner for promotion. 11. As already noticed above, this Court by the interim order dated 15.11.2013 had directed that one post of Pipe Fitter in the Water Works Branch of GMC should be kept vacant. 12. Having regard to the discussions made above, Commissioner, GMC is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion in accordance with law within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Interim order passed by this Court on 15.11.2013 shall continue till such decision is taken by the Commissioner, GMC. With the above direction, writ petition is allowed. No cost. Petition allowed.