Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 292 (JHR)

Lalit Kumar Lala v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited

2019-01-29

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2019
JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. - In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to grant promotion to the petitioner in Technical Grade A 1 on the post of Senior Loading Inspector against the vacancy that is existing under the respondent-company and further for direction upon the respondents to make payment of arrears of wages with interest for the post of Supervisor [Transport] Technical & Supervisory Grade C i.e. equivalent to Clerical Grade I with all consequential benefits w.e.f 23.02.1991. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially the petitioner was appointed as time rated worker in Category I vide letter dated 27/28 July, 1982 and thereafter regularized as Clerk (Grade III) vide order dated 11/13 January, 1984. By passage of time, vide office order dated 21/23 February, 1991 the designation of the petitioner was changed as Supervisor [Transport], hence he continued to hold Clerical Grade II post though Supervisor [Transport] was equivalent to Clerical Grade I but the petitioner was not allowed to avail the monetary benefit attached to that post. It has further been submitted that though petitioner served considerable period of time on the post of Technical Grade A but in spite of several representations and existing vacancies, his case was not considered for promotion on the next promotional post i.e. Senior Loading Inspector Technical Grade A- 1. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to law laid down in the case of State of Pubjab & Anr Vs. Dharam Pal as, (2017) 9 SCC 395 submitted that even the petitioner who was working in officiating capacity is entitled to get pay on officiating post. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner was granted promotion with retrospective effect but pay and allowances has not been granted from that date, to which the petitioner is legally entitled to. To buttress his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision rendered in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors as,2015 4 PLJR(SC) 1 . 4. To buttress his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision rendered in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors as,2015 4 PLJR(SC) 1 . 4. Reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was holding the substantive post of Technical and Supervisory Grade C. He has never been promoted to Technical and Supervisory Grade B on substantive basis followed by promotion to T & S Grade A. So far promotion to higher post is concerned, it is well settled that it is not a right provided there is a case of discrimination. Referring to supplementary counter affidavit, learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that as per relevant Claude (d) of Eligibility of I.I No. 24, the petitioner has been granted four promotions, hence he is neither entitled to get the benefit of one additional increment nor there is any due against earlier promotion granted to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that as a matter of fact the petitioner was notionally promoted on the post of Loading Inspector w.e.f 23.02.1991, vide office order dated 7/8.11.2006 (Annexure 13 to the writ application) however, his basic pay on the promoted pay was fixed @ Rs. 10,966/- per month with effect from November, 2006 but contrarily the petitioner is alleging that he is entitled for the said scale since February, 1991. In this regard it has been submitted that it is the petitioner who never opted to challenge the same i.e. Annexure 13 and no specific reason has been assigned in the writ application for such long delay. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the respondents referred to the decision rendered in the case of Printers (Mysore) Ltd. Vs. M.A. Rasheed & Ors, (2004) 4 SCC 460 . It has further been submitted that though the petitioner alleged that he has submitted several representations but as per law laid down in the case of Union of India & anr Vs. S.S. Kothiyal & Ors as, (1998) 8 SCC 682 , repeated representations do not extend cause of action. 5. Having perused the material available on record, it appears that in pursuance to order dated 3rd December, 2018 passed by this Court, a supplementary counter affidavit 28.09.2018 has been filed. S.S. Kothiyal & Ors as, (1998) 8 SCC 682 , repeated representations do not extend cause of action. 5. Having perused the material available on record, it appears that in pursuance to order dated 3rd December, 2018 passed by this Court, a supplementary counter affidavit 28.09.2018 has been filed. For better adjudication of the matter, the relevant paragraph 6 and 7 is quoted herein below: "6.That the respondent submits that in fact the petitioner has been allowed four promotion. Clause (d) of the Eligibility Clause I.I No. 24 reads as under "(d)Employees who have not been granted minimum four promotion including SLP/SLU/SLI in their service span will be given one increment in lieu of SLP on 01st January of the retiring year" 7.That the respondents state that petitioner has been allowed four promotions/SLP/SLU/SLI during his service span of 30 years, details of which are as under. (i)The petitioner who had been appointed on 27/28.7.1982 in Category-1 in Time Rated job (General Mazdoor) was regularized in clerk Grade 3 vide Office Order dated 11/13.11984 and was promoted in Clerical Grade 2 w.e.f. 1.3.1984 vide Office Order dated 18/20.8.1984 (Annexure 4). (ii)By Office Order Dated 28/29.9.2000 the petitioner was upgraded in Clerical Grade -1 under SLU and placed in T & S Grade C. The petitioner has been allowed notional seniority w.e.f. 23.2.1991 (Annexure 12). (iii)The petitioner has been allowed SLU in T &S Grade B w.e.f. 1.1.2000 as he completed 8 years counting from the year subsequent to 1991 which got completed in 1999 hence allowed from 1.1.2000 (Annexure-12) (iv)That the petitioner on completion of 8 years has been allowed another SLU w.e.f 1.1.2008 and he has been receiving the pay scale of T &S Grade A which is evident from the representation of the petitioner dated 20.9.2010 (Annexure-16)." 6. From the above statement, it is evidently clear that as per the prevalent Rule, the petitioner has been allowed four promotions/SLU during his service period of 30 years. Hence, nothing remains to be adjudicated in this case. 7. As a logical sequitur to the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements placed in this case, the writ application being devoid of any merit is dismissed.