AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Raghvendra S. Chauhan, J.
The petitioner, Mr. B.N. Sreenivasa, is aggrieved by the order dated 25.9.2014 passed by the Deputy General Manager-Personnel, whereby his representation dated 3.3.2006 for regularisation in the post of EO has been rejected.
The brief facts of the case are, petitioner was appointed on 2.4.1977 as Stenographer in A2 Grade (equivalent to First Division Clerk) in Visvesvaraya Iron and Steel Limited (''VISL'' for short), situated at Bhadravati. In order to avoid frustration amongst the employees in not getting the promotion on timely basis, the Steel Authority of India which had taken over the VISL, Bhadravati, had introduced a scheme called "Stagnation Promotion Scheme", wherein it was envisaged that the employees who have completed 10 years of service in regular grade will be promoted to the next higher grade pay scale treating it as Personal Grade (''PG'' for short). On 12.3.1991, a Memorandum of Settlement was signed between the management and the union. The said settlement dealt with promotion policy of the non-executive branch. According to the settlement dated 12th March 1991, it was agreed to introduce L9/A4 grades in Cluster system and the Service-Linked Personal Grade Promotion to be discussed with the Union and finalised subsequently. Therefore, certain conclusions were drawn and it was agreed between the parties that the PG is not a grade in the same cluster as a regular grade, and an employee will be regularised in that grade whenever there is vacancy in the higher cluster. It is the case of the petitioner that on 2.5.2002, he was given the benefit of the pay scale of the post of EO as a Personal Grade, with effect from 1.2.2002. Although he was given the said benefit as personal grade, he was not promoted to the post of EO which happens to be the lower entry point in the executive cadre. Instead, on 3.3.2006 one T.R. Narasimha Prasad - respondent No. 3 was promoted to the said post. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the promotion of Mr. T.R. Narasimha Prasad, who was junior to him, he submitted a representation to the respondent. However, the representation went unheeded. Therefore, petitioner filed a Writ Petition before this Court, namely Writ Petition No. 7114/2006. But, by judgment dated 6.7.2011, the said writ petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner filed a Writ Appeal before the learned Division Bench of this Court, namely, Writ Appeal No. 15108/2011. By the judgment dated 24.7.2014, instead of going into the merits of the case, and at the request of the petitioner, the learned Division Bench merely directed the respondents to consider his representation, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and to decide the same. Consequently, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner, by the order dated 25.9.2014, the Deputy General Manager-Personnel rejected the petitioner''s representation. Hence, this petition before this Court.
The petitioner, Mr. B.N. Sreenivasa, Party-in-Person, has vehemently contended that the respondents are unjustified in not regularizing his services in the post of EO. According to him, in the conclusion drawn at the settlement of 12.3.1991, it was also agreed that if PG is graded in the same cluster as a regular grade, then the employee would be regularised in that grade whenever vacancy arises in the higher cluster. According to him, the vacancy had arisen in 2006 itself when his junior, Mr. T.R. Narasimha Prasad was promoted. Therefore, the petitioner should have been regularised in accordance with the settlement dated 12.3.1991. He has further argued that even on 29th October 1991, a Memorandum of Settlement was drawn, wherein it was agreed that the employees who have completed total of 10 years of satisfactory service in L8/A3 and L9/A4, regular grades taken together, will be considered for personal grade (PG) promotion to existing EO grade with effect from 1st January 1992. Therefore, according to him, he was entitled for regularisation in the post of EO.
Ms. Brunda, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has contended that the petitioner is highly misplaced in praying for the relief of regularisation. According to her, firstly the petitioner belongs to non-executive cadre, whereas, the post of EO is the lowest entry point in the executive cadre. Consequently, the settlement that was entered into between the Management and the Union dated 12.3.1991 and 29.10.1991, both are limited to the promotion policy in the non-executive cadres. Therefore, these settlements would have necessarily to be restricted only to the non-executive cadres. The settlement cannot be extended to a promotion or to a regularisation of a person from a non-executive cadre to an executive one. Secondly, the respondents also have a promotion policy from non-executive to executive cadre. But the petitioner cannot be given the benefit of the said policy. Thirdly as the benefit of the pay scale of the post of EO is granted to the petitioner, but nonetheless, he continues to be in non-executive cadre. In fact, his promotion order shows that while he was working in A4/S-10, he was being promoted to S-11/EO on a personal grade. Therefore, he was merely entitled to receive the pay scale which will be applicable to the EO. But, merely because he is entitled to the said pay scale would not entitle him to claim regularisation on the said basis. Lastly, she has contended that the petitioner has suppressed the material facts from this Court. Although he has mentioned the fact that Mr. T.R. Narasimha Prasad, a junior to him, was promoted to the post of EO, he has suppressed the fact that he and Mr. T.R. Narasimha Prasad were called for an interview for promotion to the post of EO. But, while the petitioner failed in the interview, Mr. T.R. Narasimha Prasad had qualified in the interview. Therefore, he was promoted to the said post.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records submitted by them and examined the impugned order.
Admittedly, the petitioner has suppressed the material fact that he and Mr. Prasad had faced an interview for promotion to the post of EO. While Mr. Prasad had succeeded in the interview, the petitioner had failed. Therefore, the petitioner has not come with clean hands before this Court. The writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.
But even on merits, the petition fails: the short recital of the settlement between the workers association and company dated 12.3.1991 will reveal that there was restructuring, rationalization of work organization, and non-executive promotion policy. Thus, the very scope of the settlement was limited to only these three areas. For the purpose of present case, what is important to note is that the settlement dealt with the promotion policy within the non-executive cadres. The settlement has not dealt with promotion from the non-executive cadres to the executive cadre. In fact, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, the respondents have separate promotion policy for promotion from the non-executive to the executive cadre.
It is, indeed, trite to state that a document has to be read as a whole, and cannot be read in a piecemeal manner. Therefore, even the notes of conclusion and the points to which the parties have agreed, even such agreements will have to be confined to promotion within the non-executive cadre. Item No. 2 of the notes of conclusion is as under:
"Promotion within the cluster shall be independent of vacancies. Employees within the cluster shall be promoted from one regular grade to the next higher grade on completion of satisfactory service of 3 years in ''A'' and ''B'' Cluster, 4 years in ''C'', ''X'' and ''Y'' Cluster respectively subject to other criteria as per the existing promotion policy."
Therefore, a bare perusal of Item No. 2 clearly reveals that the word used is ''same cluster''. Thus, the cluster which is referred to belongs to the non-executive grade: the employee will be regularised in that grade whenever there is vacancy in the higher cluster. Undoubtedly, the words ''cluster in grades'' refers to the non-executive cadres, and does not include in its ambit a cluster or a grade of the executive side.
Moreover, in the settlement dated 29th October 1991, Item No. 7 reads as under :
"Employees who complete total of ten years of satisfactory service in L8/A3 and L9/A4 regular grades taken together will be considered for personal grade (PG) promotion to existing EO grade with effect from 1st January 1992 although such a system of giving PG promotion to EO grade is not in existence in other SAIL Units/Plants. This will be further reviewed in the event of any change in SAIL policy."
A bare perusal of the said Item No. 7 clearly reveals that when an employee has completed 10 years of satisfactory service, he would be considered for personal grade promotion to the existing EO grade. The personal grade promotion as the very name implies is personal to the employee. It merely entitles him to receive the pay scale of the EO grade, but does not entitle him to claim regularization in the post of EO. Since the post of EO is the lowest post of entry into the executive grade, any regularisation would amount to promotion. Since such promotion could not be given, therefore, Item No. 7 is silent and does not bestow the right of regularisation upon an employee. While entering into the settlement dated 29th October 1991, the respondents were well aware that the EO post is the lowest post of entry to the executive cadre and it is a post to be filled by promotion. Therefore, Item No. 7 was intentionally restricted to merely giving the benefit of pay scale of EO - a personal benefit, but did not bestow the right of regularisation. Hence, the petitioner is unjustified in claiming that under these two settlements, having been given a personal grade to the EO grade, ipso facto he would be entitled to regularisation in the said post.
A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 29.5.2014 clearly reveals that the Deputy General Manager has clearly noted that both the settlement dated 12.3.1991 and 29.10.1991 deal with non-executive promotion policy, whereas, petitioner claims regularisation in EO grade which is an entry grade in the executive cadre. As per the existing system, regularisation amounts to promotion to EO grade, wherein, the promotion from non-executive cadre to execute cadre is governed by separate policy which the petitioner -Mr. B.N. Sreenivasa is aware of. Moreover, taking note of Item No. 2 mentioned above, the Deputy General Manager has noted that EO grade is neither the same grade in the cluster, nor it is a grade in the higher cluster. But, the EO grade is altogether a different grade in the executive cadre. The interpretation given by the Deputy General Manager cannot be faulted with as he has logically and legally interpreted the settlement dated 12.3.1991 and 29.10.1991.
Thus, for the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. This petition is devoid of any merits. It is, hereby, dismissed.