N.L. Sharma and others vs State of H.P. and others

Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge

Petitioners are employee of the respondent-federation. They had been working as Manager (P&I), Manager (Production), Assistant Manager, Assistant Manager (P&I), Assistant Manager (Quality Control), Manager (Production), Assistant Manager and Plant Engineer, respectively. Case of the petitioners, in a nutshell, is that nomenclature of the post of respondent No.3 could not be changed from Project Coordinator to Senior Manager (Plants), as per Annexure A-5 dated 24.1.1995. Their further case is that the post of Project Coordinator was not provided in the service bylaws framed by the respondent-federation in 1983.

Ms. Salochana Kuandal has vehemently argued that the promotional avenues of her clients have been reduced by changing the nomenclature of the post of Project Coordinator to Senior Manager (Plants).

Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General, Mr. N.K. Thakur and Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj appearing on behalf of the respondents have strenuously argued that the post of Project Co-coordinator was duly created and thereafter filled up and before that respondent No.3 was working on secondment basis with effect from 22.10.1983 to 30.11.1986. They also argued that respondent-federation has taken up the matter for restructuring of the staff etc. with the respondent-State and the same was approved on 23.10.1992 and thereafter the designation of the post of Project Officer was changed to Senior Manager (Plants). They have also argued that the pay scale, qualification and nature of duties of the post of Project Coordinator and Senior Manager (Plants) were identical.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully.

Respondent No.3 was working in the National Diary Development and has come to respondent-federation on secondment basis on 22.10.1983. He worked in this capacity from 22.10.1983 to 30.11.1986. He moved an application for permanent absorption in the respondent-federation. Thereafter, the expert panel recommended the case of respondent No3 on 25.11.1986, vide Annexure R-4. Thereafter, the Board of Directors of the respondent-federation approved the creation of the post of Project Coordinator on 25.11.1986, vide Annexure R-5. In sequel to the decision dated 25.11.1986, respondent No.3 was offered appointment letter of the post of Project Coordinator, vide Annexure P-3 on 1.12.1986.

Mr. N.K. Thakur has drawn the attention of the Court to clause 1.5 of the H.P. State Milk Federation Employees'' Service Rules reproduced in the petition. According to clause 1.5, the Board of Directors has the power to sanction and create from time to time, such permanent and temporary posts, as may in their opinion, on the recommendations of expert panel, be expedient for the working of the federation.

In the case in hand, the expert panel has already recommended the post of Project Coordinator on 25.11.1986. Thereafter, the Board of Directors recommended the creation of the post of Project Coordinator, which led to the appointment of respondent No.3 on 1.12.1986 as Project Coordinator. Since the process for the creation of the post had commenced in 1986, the same could not be included in the H.P. State Milk Federation Employees'' Service Rules. The respondent-federation has taken up the case with the State of H.P. for restructuring of staff pattern on 4.6.1992 after transfer of diary development activities of the remaining arias of the State of H.P. Milk Federation. Case for designation of post of Project Coordinator as Senior Manager was also included therein as per Annexure R-2/A. State Government accorded approval on 23.10.1992 whereby three posts of Senior Managers were sanctioned. Managing Director of the respondent-federation issued office order on 5.10.1994 whereby revised staff structure alongwith pay scales came into force with effect from 1.10.1994. Managing Director of the respondent-federation issued office order on 24.1.1995 whereby nomenclature of the post of Project Coordinator was changed to Senior Manager (Plants), as undertaken in Annexure R-2/A. There is no illegality in the change of nomenclature of the post of Project Coordinator to the post of Senior Manager (Plants), vide order dated 24.1.1995. According to the reply filed by respondents No.2 to 4, the pay scale, qualification and nature of duties of Project Coordinator and Senior Manager (Plants) were the same. It is also reiterated that when the matter was taken up by the respondent-federation with the State Government vide Annexure R-2/A dated 4.6.1992, the post of Project Coordinator was also mentioned for designation as Senior Manager (Plants). Respondent No.3 had started discharging the duties of Project Coordinator with effect from 22.10.1983 on secondment basis and was offered regular appointment on 1.12.1986. The Court had also directed the respondent-federation to file supplementary affidavit whether the post in question was advertised or not. It has come in the reply that the post was not advertised but the manner in which the post has been filled up has been given in detail, as discussed hereinabove. Since respondent No.3 had come to the federation on secondment basis on 22.10.1983, the process for filling up the post was initiated on regular basis on his request, vide Annexure R-3. The expert panel recommended the case of the petitioner and subsequently, the same was approved by the Board of Directors on 25.11.1986.

Petitioners had also made representations vide Annexure A-6 on 16.2.1997 and the same was also discussed by the Board of Directors, vide Annexure A-7. It has come in the reply that initially there were two posts of Senior Manager (Plants) and thereafter, after the proposal of the federation was accepted, three posts have become available of the cadre of Senior Manager (Plants). Thus, it cannot be said that the rights of the petitioners in any way have been reduced for promotion to the post in question. The post of Project Coordinator has been re-designated as Senior Manager (Plants).

Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.