AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Chandrashekhar, J.—Being aggrieved that the Implementation Instruction No. 32 dated 22.1.2002 has not been implemented in full and the beneficiaries of the instructions dated 22.1.2002 have not been allowed proper designation, the petitioners have filed the Writ Petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners have not been granted promotion. He has placed reliance on paragraph No. (2) of the Implementation Instruction No. 32 dated 22.1.2001 which says:--
(2) Existing I.T.I. Personnel who have completed three years in the existing grade as on 31.12.1999 will be notionally placed in next higher category/grade w.e.f. 1.1.2000 but the financial benefit will accrue w.e.f. 1.1.2001 and this will be personal to them as one time arrangement.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which a statement has been made in paragraph No. (4), which is extracted below:--
That at the outset, it is stated and submitted that the present writ application is liable to be dismissed in limine in view of the fact that the Respondents have already given effect to the provisions contained in Implementation Instruction No. 32 formulated by the Joint Bipartite Committee on Coal Industry-VI (JBCCI-VI). It is stated and submitted that the Respondents have implemented the said Instruction in its true perspective and there is no illegality and infirmity. It is stated and submitted that by office order dated 13.1.2003 contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application and the office order dated 8.1.2003 the petitioners have been given appropriate placement and consequently monetary benefits have also been allowed.
By way of example, the name of the petitioner No. 1 figures at serial No. 3 of the office order dated 13.1.2003 (Annexure-4). He was having designation of Foreman (Mechanical) in Technical and Supervisory Grade-B. It is stated that in the light of the Implementation Instruction No. 32, the petitioner No. 1 was placed in Technical and Supervisory Grade-A which is a grade higher to T & S Grade-B. It is further stated that as per Implementation Instruction, he has been allowed placement with effect from 1.1.2001 and also monetary benefit from the self same date. Similar benefits have been extended to the petitioners in the writ application and accordingly, the answering Respondents have given effect to I.I. No. 32 of J.B.C.C.I-VI.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that in terms of Implementation Instruction No. 32 dated 22.1.2002, the petitioners were to be placed notionally in next higher grade and such placement was to be personal to them and such an arrangement was decided to be as one time arrangement. She has further submitted that the petitioners have already been given proper placement and it was not intended in the Implementation Instruction No. 32 that they would be eligible for further promotion.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has failed to indicate any provisions in Implementation Instruction No. 32 dated 22.1.2002 where under they would be entitled for further promotion. A perusal of the said Implementation Instruction makes it clear that such an arrangement was agreed upon as a one time arrangement. In view of the aforesaid and particularly the statement made in paragraph No. (4) of the counter affidavit that the instructions have been fully implemented in the case of petitioners, this writ petition is dismissed.