Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1010 (CAL)

Ravindra Shyamrao Wadhai v. Coal India Ltd.

2017-12-22

I.P.MUKERJI, MD.MUMTAZ KHAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : I.P. MUKERJI, J. 1. The appellants are employees of Coal India Ltd., the respondent No. 1. This organisation has many grades for its employees. The appellants are management trainees in (E-1) category. They were appointed on 5th June, 2012. Now, under the Common Coal Cadre (CCC) out of the total vacancy in the personnel/welfare department in the E-1 cadre, (Executive Cadre) 50% of the jobs are reserved for fresh outside candidates and 50% for the departmental candidates. 50% of the vacancies in this E Cadre which are to be filled from department candidates is undertaken by a promotion/selection process conducted by the organisation. By a circular dated 8th March, 2016 Coal India Ltd. made an internal notification that the selection of the departmental candidates was to be through examination and interview. 2. The recruitment started in the month of March, 2010 and ended in June, 2012. 3. While this recruitment process for the departmental candidates was kept pending from March, 2010 to June, 2012, in the year 2011, Coal India Ltd. issued an advertisement for recruitment of new candidates from the market to fill up the 50% vacancies reserved for outside candidates in the E-1 grade. 4. The selection list for these outside candidates was published on 10th December, 2011, whilst the recruitment process for the departmental candidates was kept pending. 5. Now, comes the interesting point in the case. On 22nd March, 2012 Coal India Ltd. published an "Office Order" to the following effect: "The Board of Directors of CIL in their 277th meeting held on 30.01.2012 has approved the following: 1. Recruitment of Management Trainees of all disciplines (either through open advertisement or through campus) will be in E2 Grade in 1" year and they will be placed in E3 grade after successful completion on 1 year training. 2. Management trainee's who are at present in E-1 grade or those Management Trainees who have been appointed on or after 01.01.2007 would be deemed to have been appointed in E2 grade and after successful completion of the requisite training, they would be deemed to have been placed in E# grade and their pay will be appropriately fixed. 3. All those Management Trainee's who have been placed in E2 grade on successful completion of training between 01.01.2007 to 31.12.2010 will be placed in E2 grade with appropriate pay fixation. 4. 3. All those Management Trainee's who have been placed in E2 grade on successful completion of training between 01.01.2007 to 31.12.2010 will be placed in E2 grade with appropriate pay fixation. 4. All the provisions of Common Coal Cadre regarding recruitment, regularisation/absorption/placement, closure of probation etc to be amended as per the policy mentioned above and, 5. No arrears will be paid on account of such re-gradation or national. fixation. Accordingly, (a) the service conditions of existing Management Trainees & Sr. Officers appointed on or after 01.01.2007 be regulated accordingly and (b) necessary amendments are being made in the relevant clauses or Common Coal Cadre. This will be effective from 1" April, 2012. This issues with the approval of Competent Authority." 6. It was said that the facts stated in the office order were approved at the 277th meeting of the board of directors of the company held on 30th January, 2012. 7. Paragraph 2 of this decision is most significant. It meant that those management trainees who had already been recruited from outside in or about December, 2011 would be deemed to have been appointed in the E-2 grade. Only they, upon successful completion of regular training could be placed in the E-3 grade after appropriate fixation of pay. The point which departmental candidates, want to drive home is they are similarly situated as the outside candidates. Their recruitment process which was begun in March, 2010, was kept pending whereas the recruitment process for outside candidates which was begun in 2011 was completed by December of that year. Their selection pending, the management appointed the outside candidates in the E-1 cadre and went on to publish the said circular dated 22nd March, 2012 treating them in the E-2 grade and promising them promotion to E-3 grade after one year of training. 8. The contention of the appellant is that this circular could have been issued after June, 2012 or the departmental selection completed before 22nd March, 2012 so that the departmental employees as well as those who came from outside would be on the same plane as E-1 executives and could be treated equally by re-designating their post as E-2. Furthermore, all of them could be expected to be promoted the cadre E-3 after one year of training. 9. They submit that by doing this their seniority has been sacrificed. It was said by Mr. Furthermore, all of them could be expected to be promoted the cadre E-3 after one year of training. 9. They submit that by doing this their seniority has been sacrificed. It was said by Mr. Bhatacharya, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants that the action of the said respondent was most arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable. 10. Mr. Alok Banerjee learned counsel appearing for the respondents showed me the promotion rules of the organisation. There is an existence a common Coal Cadre. In the E-1 grade 50% of the vacancies in the personnel department were to be filled by departmental candidates and the remaining 50% by direct recruitment. He said that the departmental promotes and the outside candidates were separate classes. They could not be compared. Not more than 50% vacancies were filled by outside candidates. The departmental candidates could not have any grievance because 50% vacancies in the E-1 grade were filled up by them by promotion. If these two categories in the E-1 grade were considered as separate classes the appellants could not compare, inter se, seniority of constituents of these two separate classes. 11. In Union of India and Ors. v. Atul Shukla, reported in AIR 2015 SC 1777 cited by Mr. Bhattachrya, Mr. Justice Thakur remarked that classification of employees based on the method of their recruitment had long been declared impermissible. There could be no difference between a employee directly recruited vis-à-vis another who was promoted so long as the two employees were part of the same cadre. They could not be treated differently either for the purposes of pay and allowance or other conditions of service including the age of superannuation. An officer may reach a particular rank by accelerated promotion. Another officer may reach the same rank over a longer period of time. Once that rank was reached they were equal and either of them could be treated unequally in the matter of pay, allowances or other benefits. 12. Mr. Banerjee, laid emphasis on paragraph 40 of V.T. Khanzode & Ors. v. Reserve Bank of India, reported in: AIR 1982 SC 917 which is set out below:- "40. It is clear from this narration of historical events that the various Departments of the Reserve Bank were grouped and regrouped from time to time. 12. Mr. Banerjee, laid emphasis on paragraph 40 of V.T. Khanzode & Ors. v. Reserve Bank of India, reported in: AIR 1982 SC 917 which is set out below:- "40. It is clear from this narration of historical events that the various Departments of the Reserve Bank were grouped and regrouped from time to time. Such adjustments in the administrative affairs of the Bank are a necessary sequel to the growing demands of new situations which are bound to arise in any developing economy. The group system has never been a closed or static chapter and it is wrong to think that the officers of the various groups were kept, as it were, in quarantine. The group system has been a continuous process of trial and error and the impugned scheme of inter-group mobility has emerged as the best solution out of the experience of the past. Combined seniority has been recommended by two special committees, whose reports reflect the expertise and objectivity which was brought to bear on their sensitive task. It is clear that inter-group mobility and common seniority are a safe and sound solution to the conflicting demands of officers belonging to Group I on one hand and those of Groups II and III on the other. Private interest of employees of public undertakings cannot override public interest and an effort has to be made to harmonize the two considerations. No scheme governing service matters can be fool-proof and some section or the other employees is bound to feel aggrieved on the score of its expectations being falsified or remaining to be fulfilled. Arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity and mala fides will of course render any scheme unconstitutional but the fact that the scheme does not satisfy the expectations of every employee is not evidence of these. Vested interests are prone to hold on to their acquisitions and we understand the feelings of Group I officers who have to surrender a part of the benefits which had accrued to them in a water-tight system of grouping. Combined seniority is indispensable for the smooth functioning of the Bank and no organisation can function smoothly if one section of its officers has an unfair advantage over others in matters of promotional opportunities. Combined seniority is indispensable for the smooth functioning of the Bank and no organisation can function smoothly if one section of its officers has an unfair advantage over others in matters of promotional opportunities. The reports of the Cadre Review Committee and the Thareja Committee show that combined seniority has emerged as the most acceptable solution as a matter of administrative, historical and functional necessity. We see no justification for undoing what these committees have achieved after an objective and integral examination of the whole issue. We may mention that the conclusion to which these committees came were considered by the Bank when Shri M. Narasimhan, later India's Executive Director in the World Bank, was the Governor and it was after Dr. I.G. Patel, Formerly Secretary, Economic Affairs, Govt. of India and Deputy Administrator, United Nations Development Programme, took over as Governor in December 1977 that the final decision was taken by the Central Board to introduce inter-group mobility and combined seniority.'' 13. The essence of the ratio in this case is that there may be groups of employees in an association. There may be a scheme governing service. Some employees may feel aggrieved by the scheme. That does not mean that the scheme suffers from arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity, mala fide etc,. 14. E-1 cadre is a particular cadre in the personnel department of Indian Oil Corporation. In accordance with its Common Cadre Coal, 50% of the employees in this Cadre are drawn from the organisation itself, by promotion. 50% are recruited from the market by a process of selection. In our opinion, all the employees in this cadre are similarly situated and equal. No discrimination can be made between a departmental recruit and a direct recruit. The selection test for departmental candidates was announced on 8th March, 2010 by the respondents were through a circular. In 2011, they issued a notice inviting applications from outside candidates. While the selection process for outside candidates was concluded in December, 2011, the same test for departmental candidates was concluded in June, 2012. The result was that while outside candidates got employment from or about January 2012, the departmental candidates would have to wait till or after June, 2012 for the promotion order. 15. While the selection process for outside candidates was concluded in December, 2011, the same test for departmental candidates was concluded in June, 2012. The result was that while outside candidates got employment from or about January 2012, the departmental candidates would have to wait till or after June, 2012 for the promotion order. 15. To rub salt into injury on 22nd March, 2012, the said respondent issued the said notification that those management trainees who were in the E-1 cadre on or after 1st January, 2007 were deemed to be appointed in the E-2 cadre and upon successful completion of training would be deemed to have been placed in the E-3 Cadre. Since, the outside candidates had already been appointed in the E-1 cadre after December, 2011, they were automatically inducted into the E-2 cadre, while the departmental candidates had to wait till June, 2012 for their results. So, the moment the other candidates were taken in, on or after December, 2011 the writ petitioners lost seniority to them. 16. The decision of the respondent organisation would have been pragmatic and reasonable, if the decision of the Board of Directors taken on 31st January, 2012 and communicated on 22nd March, 2012 was taken or given effect to after publication of the results of the departmental candidates so that each and every employee in the E-1 cadre could get the benefit of this decision. By this decision a particular group in the E-1 cadre, recruited from the market was favoured as against the departmental candidates. Indeed this was discriminatory of them. We have no doubt in saying on the face of it this action was illegal. We do not have to repeat that any action of a government body or statutory body like the Indian Oil Corporation should not only be transparent but should be fair, just and equitable. This decision is patently unfair and inequitable. 17. In the circumstances, this writ application succeeds. We allow the same by granting orders in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of the petition. The benefit of the resolution of the board of directors taken on 30th January, 2012 and communicated by the office order dated 22nd March, 2012 shall be deemed to applicable to the appellants from the same date and in the same manner it has been made applicable to the direct recruits in the E-1 cadre. 18. The benefit of the resolution of the board of directors taken on 30th January, 2012 and communicated by the office order dated 22nd March, 2012 shall be deemed to applicable to the appellants from the same date and in the same manner it has been made applicable to the direct recruits in the E-1 cadre. 18. For the above reasons, the order of the Hon'ble first Court dated 1st March, 2017 is set aside. Certified photocopy of this Judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. Md. Mumtaz Khan, J. I Agree.