FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & Ors. v. PARASHOTAM DAS BANSAL & Ors.

Judgment

+ , I A (2008] 2 S.C.R. 412 A B FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS. v. PARASHOTAM DAS BANSAL & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 991 of 2008) FEBRUARY 5, 2008 [S.B. SINHA AND G.S. SINGHVI, JJ.] Service law - Promotion - No avenue for certain categories of employees appointed with a statutory body - c Recommendations of Pay Commission- Non-implementation - Challenge to - Writ petition allowed by High Court - During pendency, scheme framed for promotion to selection grade and some employees obtained benefit thereunder- On appeal held: Employee has a right to be considered for promotion D and not a fundamental right of promotion - It is within the realm of the statutory authority that how the employees would be structured but by reason thereof, it cannot tinker with their essential fundamental right- Introduction of grant of selection It was grade did not provide for a promotional scheme - E available to a limited number of employees - More so benefit of promotion was available to unionised employees - Thus, order of High Court upheld - Food Corporation of India, 1964.

Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 16 and 226 - · Promotion - No avenues, resulting in stagnation - Interference F by court - Held: Court has jurisdiction to issue necessary ' ;. direction to frame a Scheme.· The respondents were appointed in the engineering section of the appellant-Food Corporation of India. They · were stagnant for past 30 years as there was no G promotional avenue for them. Several other categories of employees filed applications for formulation .of suitable schemes of organizational structure. The Fifth Pay Commission made recommendation but the same were not implemented. Some of the employees filed writ petition. 412 H FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS. v. PARASHOTAM DAS BANSAL & ORS.

413 It was also contended that the scheme had already been A introduced for medical officers working in appella(lt's organization. During pendency of the writ petition, scheme was framed for promotion to selection grade and some of the respondents obtained benefits. The Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition. The B Division Bench upheld the order. Hence the present appeal. .. · Dismissing the appeal, the Court -. .. HELD: 1.1 Appellant is a 'State' within the meaning c of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. An employee of a State although has no fundamental right of promotion, it has a right to be considered therefor. What is necessary is to provide an opportunity of advancement; promotion being a normal incidence of service. [Para 9) [418-C-D]