Guna Nand Jha vs Steel Authority of India Limited, Bokaro and another

Virender Singh, C.J. - Whether the appellant writ petitioner (hereinafter to be referred as petitioner) was to be promoted from Non-executive to Executive post in the year 1987-1988 was the issue before the Writ Court. Initially, the petitioner raised a dispute for which a reference was made to the Labour Court for adjudicating the following dispute:

"Whether not to nominate Shri G.N. Jha Staff No. 312116, Senior O and M Assistant to D.P.C. for promotion from the post of Non-executive to the post of Executive, in spite of possessing experience and education qualification, by the management is justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to?"

The Labour Court vide its award dated 6th July, 1994 held that the petitioner was entitled to promotion which award was challenged by the respondent Management through the medium of C.W.J.C. No. 3216 of 1994 (R). The said writ petition came to be disposed of by the learned Writ Court; operative part thereof reads thus:

"Having heard the counsel for the parties, this Court feels that the last portion of the direction given by the Respondent no. 2, the Presiding Officer to the petitioner to promote Shri G.N. Jha with effect from 13th of 2 March, 1989 to Junior Executive Grade and with effect from 13th March, 1992 to Junior Management Grade is not a proper order. In fact, he should have given a direction to the management petitioner to "consider the case of the respondent G.N. Jha" for promotion to Junior Executive (O and M) with effect from 13th March, 1989 and to the next higher post of Junior Manager (O and M) with effect from 13th of March, 1992, i.e. from the date his juniors were so promoted. Accordingly, this Court modifies the last operative portion of the impugned award (Annexure 17) to that extent.

The petitioner will now consider the case of Shri G.N. Jha for promotion to the post of Junior Executive (O and M) with effect from 13th of March, 1989, by placing the case of said Shri G.N. Jha before the D.P.C. and the Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C.) will take into account the service record of the Respondent No. 1, Shri G.N. Jha, service rules for such consideration with effect from 13th of March, 1989. The petitioner Management will thereafter come out with proper notification in terms with the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee. The consequential benefits of promotion, as has been ordered to the post of Junior Manager with effect from 13th of March, 1992 is also to be considered thereafter, in accordance with law. All the aforesaid formalities are to be completed by the petitioner management within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

The writ petition is disposed of with the aforementioned modification and direction."

It is thereafter, the case of the petitioner was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee resulting into passing of an order by the respondent Chief Personnel Manager (OD) dated 12th November, 1996. The said order reveals that the D.P.C perused the service records of the petitioner and found that he was not eligible. It is worth noticing that with regard to the others it was noticed by the D.P.C that those who are not fulfilling the eligibility condition, their cases were also not considered for promotion.

The aforesaid order dated 12th November, 1996 was challenged by 3 the petitioner through the medium of C.W.J.C. No. 3857 of 1996 (R), which now stands dismissed vide impugned order dated 29th March, 2004, aggrieved thereof the instant Letters Patent Appeal has been filed and now taken up for its final consideration.

We have heard learned counsel for both the sides, perused the impugned order and the Writ Court''s record.

What we find from the pleadings of the parties that the petitioner had pleaded inter alia that he was initially appointed as Assistant Grade IV in Personnel Department of Bokaro Steel Plant on 22nd February, 1974 and was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-III on 28th February, 1981 and thereafter, he was appointed as Organisation and Method Assistant Grade AIII on 4th January, 1983 and completed 03 years of service in the said Grade on 4th January, 1986 and therefore, in view of the Scheme he was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Executive cadre after 4th January, 1986. The other plea taken by the petitioner was that Clause 3.4 does not require training for consideration for promotion to the Executive post and that Clause 5.2 of the Scheme inter alia provides that those employees who are Graduates and have at least 03 years of service in AIII Grade or any other Grade, promotion can be made directly to EI Grade or equivalent. What is worth noticing here is that all the pleas taken by the petitioner are from the old policy and the award of the Labour Court which initially went in his favour, was also on account of the settlement arrived at on the strength of the old policy which award was ultimately partly modified with a direction to reconsider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the Service Rules of 1989, which exercise was done by the respondent authority who ultimately rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground of lack of the eligibility qualification. It would be apt to reproduce paragraph 11 of the impugned judgment in this regard:

"11. I find much force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents. Since this Court specifically directed the Departmental Promotion Committee to take in account "the Service record" of the Gunanand Jha and "Service Rules" for such consideration and, therefore, the D.P.C. was well within its jurisdiction and authority to reject the claim of the petitioner for such promotion on the basis of the consideration of service record of the petitioner and service rules. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the D.P.C. have no jurisdiction/authority to reject the claim of the petitioner for promotion cannot be accepted and, accordingly, the same is rejected. The letter as contained in Annexure 9 to the writ application issued under the signature of the Chief General Manager is nothing but a communication of the aforesaid decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee to the petitioner. I find nothing wrong in the sad letter as contained in Annexured 9 to the writ application."

Having considered the case of the petitioner from all angles, we are of the considered view that he has no case at all. Resultantly, we do not find any reason much less valid or legal reason to disturb the impugned order dated 29th March, 2004 of the learned Single Judge and hence, the instant appeal merits dismissal.

Ordered accordingly.