AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Lingaraja Rath, J.—The rejection of the appellant''s representation on 20-4-1990 negativing his claim for promotion as Deputy Executive Engineer with effect from 2-8-1981 led him to file W.P.No. 8824/1990 which having been dismissed, this appeal has been preferred. The facts relating to the case appear in the Judgment under appeal, but for convenience of reference the bare details may be stated. The appellant had originally been recruited on 30th October, 1968 in the State Agro Industries Corporation where his services were regularised on 1-7-1969 and thereafter he was sent along with some others on 25-3-1977, which the appellant says was on a functional basis, to the respondent Corporation. While continuing there, the Agro Industries Corporation found it not necessary to continue the drilling operations and the establishment relating to that and as the appellant and persons like him faced retrenchment because of the winding up of the establishment that was to take place, gave them the option of absorption in the respondent-Corporation where they were already working. The appellant, before exercising the option, sought for a clarification on 31-11-1977 regarding the terms and conditions of absorption in the respondent-Corporation to which a communication was sent from the respondent-Corporation to the General Secretary of Andhra Pradesh State Agro Industries Employees Union on 3-2-1978 stating inter alia, regarding fixation of seniority, that the length of the regularised service of the employees of APSAIC Ltd., will be taken into account for the purpose of fixation of seniority as "The transfer of the rigs and personnel is a considered on functional basis. In case of DCM their length of service in that category in APSAIC will be treated for purposes of seniority as that of a supervisor". The appellant exercised option to be absorbed and thereafter order was passed on 5-5-1978 by the respondent-Corporation in Proceedings No. IDC/MD/Adm/S2/E2/629/77/5463 that they shall be treated as the employees of the respondent-Corporation for all purposes from the date of issue of the order. The DCM (Driver-Cum-Chargeman) officers were absorbed as Supervisors. Subsequently decision was taken by the Corporation in its 36th Meeting held on 29-10-1979 to give 50% weightage of the regular service rendered in the Agro Industries Corporation for the purpose of fixation of seniority. A provisional seniority list was however published on 30-11-1979 showing the appellant''s seniority from 25-3-1977. The decision to give credit for only 50% of the Agro Industries Corporation service was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 4898/1980 which was disposed of directing the Corporation to reconsider the matter. It is the common case of the parties that on re-consideration the same principle for determination of seniority was retained. In the mean time, the Corporation took decision on 14-5-1984 to reduce, for the purpose of promotion to the rank of Dy. Executive Engineer, the qualifying service period from 10 years to 8 years. Applying such basis of reduced experience, the appellant was promoted as Dy. Executive Engineer with effect from 2-8-1981 by proceedings issued on 25-6-1984. But later on 8-5-1985 the order dated 25-6-1984 was superseded and another order was passed making the promotion effective from 2-5-1983 as the relaxation was only prospective from 14-5-1984.
The learned counsel for the appellant has urged firstly that the appellant and the persons similarly placed like him are entitled to the full benefit of the service rendered in the Agro Industries Corporation in the matter of fixation of their seniority and that secondly, the promotion as Dy. Executive Engineer having been in fact given on 25-6-1984, the relaxation in the requirement of the period of service for promotion must be held applicable to the promotion for which reason it has to be held that he had been correctly promoted as Dy. Executive Engineer from 2-8-1981. A third submission is raised that in postdating his promotion to 2-8-1983, no opportunity for hearing was given to him.
There is no dispute about the fact that the respondent Corporation is a completely independent and different Corporation than the Agro Industries Corporation. The appellant was on deputation to the respondent-Corporation from 25th March, 1977, but as is well-known, his service rendered in the transferee Corporation is always taken as the service rendered in the parent organisation only, without any right being created in favour of the employee in the transferee organisation. The appellant and the persons similarly placed became surplus in the Agro Industries Corporation and were facing retrenchment to save from which lot, they were offered alternative employment in the respondent-Corporation. Even though it was originally stated on 3-2-1978 that the service rendered in the APSAIC will be counted for the purpose of seniority, yet a departure was made on 5-5-1978 directing that the absorbed employees would be treated as respondent-Corporation employees would be treated as respondent-Corporation employees only from 5-5-1978. Thereafter the decision came on 30-11-1979 to give only 50% weightage to the service rendered in the APSAIC. Not only that, the respondent-Corporation on 5-5-1984 saying:
"In continuation of my representation cited, I submit mat I am agreeable to Management considering giving weightage at 50% of the service I have rendered in APS Agro Industries Corporation Limited, prior to getting absorbed in APSIDC Limited as Section Officer for the purpose of fixation of seniority and for the sanction of weightage increments.
I also submit that I am willing to come under the revised pay scales of 1978 w.e.f., 2-8-1978 by which date I have completed 5 years of service as worked out below.
Date Month Year ------ ------- ------ Date of absorption in IDC 5 5 1978 Date of entry in Agro Industries 30 10 1968 At 50% 9-6-6/2 4 years 9 months 3 days i.e., 5-5-1978 28-2 ---------- Date by which 5 years 2-8-1978 of service completed. I request the Management kindly to consider the above and do the needful at an early date."
The letter was an unequivocal admission of the appellant to abide by the decision of the Corporation to give him 50% weightage of the service rendered in APSAIC. His acceptance of the decision of the respondent regarding fixation of seniority was waiver of any right he might have had on the basis of the communication made to him on 3-2-1978 that his entire service rendered in the former corporation would be counted for the purpose of seniority. That being so, the appellant cannot be now heard to say that the representation made to him on 3-2-1978 by the respondent was varied to his disadvantage. The letter was communicated by him on 5-5-1984, i.e., after dismissal of W.P.No. 4898 of 1980 on 8-2-1983 in pursuance of the decision of that case only. It was thus held out by the appellant himself to the respondent to fix the seniority on the 50% reduction basis. This argument on behalf of the appellant hence must fail.
As regards the contention raised that the promotion of the appellant is to be held to have been correctly made from 2-8-1981, we find ourselves unable to agree with the submission. The relaxation in the eligibility qualification was not made retrospectively. The date from which the appellant seeks to be retrospectively promoted i.e., 2-8-1981, he was admittedly not having ten years of service. Though the actual consideration for promotion is taken up at a later date, yet, he was to be considered for promotion only on the basis of the condition as was obtained on the date with effect from which the consideration is made. Since he was not eligible for promotion, on such consideration, on 2-8-1981, he was promoted with effect from 2-8-1983, i.e., the date on which he had become eligible with 10 years of service.
As regards the question of natural justice urged, it is seen that the decision of the authorities has been taken on a correct appreciation of the legal position regarding the eligibility of the appellant for promotion. Since no illegality has been committed by the respondents, we do not consider that lack of opportunity to the appellant in that regard would vitiate the ultimate decision taken. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the appeal which is dismissed. But in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.