Sukra Oraon .… v. 1. Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Ltd. A Government of India Undertaking, 43/46, Garden
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5437 of 2016 ---- Sukra Oraon .…..Petitioner Versus 1. Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Ltd. A Government of India Undertaking, 43/46, Garden Reach Road, P.O. P.S. Sadar, Kolkata-24. 2. Chairman cum Managing Director, Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Ltd., a Government of India Undertaking, 43/46, Garden Reach Road, P.O. P.S. Sadar, Kolkata-24. 3. Diesel Engine Plant, a Unit of Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Ltd. Having its office at Plant Plaza Road, Dhurwa, P.O. P.S. Jagarnathpur, Ranchi-4. 4. General Manager, Diesel Engine Plant, a Unit of Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Ltd. having its office at Plant Plaza Road, Dhurwa, P.O. P.S. Jagarnathpur, Ranchi-4. 5. Deputy General Manager ( HR&A), Diesel Engine Plant, a Unit of Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Ltd. Having its office at Plant Plaza Road, Dhurwa, P.O. P.S. Jagarnathpur, Ranchi-4. ………..Respondents ----
Legal Reasoning
Reference Case No. 5/89 the Management had moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3349 of 1993 R which however was dismissed on 14.11.1994. After the dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner and many others had made a representation dated 21.7.1993 before the G.M. (O)/Dep/Ranchi/Ore wherein they requested to give their promotion in the next higher grade in terms of the Award of the Tribunal. The petitioner had also made a representation dated 1.5.95 before the Personnel Manager to grant him promotion in terms of the Award dated 25.5.193 and in reply thereto the petitioner was informed that his promotion from UDC grade to Assistant Grade is being considered in terms of the Award dated 25.5.1993. It has been stated that a notice was issued on 8.2.1997 by the works manager by which 24 clerical staffs were promoted to the post of next higher grade with effect from 1.1.1996 but the case of the petitioner was not considered. The petitioner was issued a charge sheet on 22.1.1996 in which misconduct was alleged. The petitioner had filed a show cause denying the charges levelled against him but ultimately in the departmental proceeding, an order of punishment was passed against the petitioner dated 8.12.1997 of reduction to lower grade/post with immediate effect. Vide another office order dated 12.12.1997 issued by the Chief Manager (Works), the petitioner was placed in the lower grade of LDC with effect from 12.12.1997 in the pay scale of Rs.2100/-3100/- and he was posted in Maintenance Department. While the same office order, the petitioner was also directed to resume his duty by vacating the suspension order and with a direction to treat the suspension period as on duty subject to deduction of subsistence allowance already paid to him. The petitioner had preferred an appeal dated 6.1.1988 before the respondent no. 2 3 W.P(S) No. 5437 of 2016 but when the same was not being heard the petitioner had moved this Court in
Arguments
Coram: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY -------- For the Petitioner For the Respondents : M/s. M.M. Pal, Sr. Advocate : Leena Mukherjee & Pushpanjali Kumari, ` Advocates : Mr. Arbind Kumar Sinha, Advocate -------- 12/_2/02/2024 Heard Mrs. M.M. Pal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Arbind Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of promotion of the petitioner retrospectively to Assistant Grade in terms of the Award dated 25.5.1993 and to grant all consequential benefits thereon. The petitioner has also prayed to extend the benefit of his promotion to Assistant Grade in terms of the Award at par with similarly situated persons. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the appellate order dated 2.12.2011 passed by the Director (Personnel). 3. Briefly stated the facts reveal that the petitioner was initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk vide order dated 1.10.1978 and was posted at the Ranchi Unit of the respondents. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk with effect from 1.7.1983 in the scale of pay of Rs.511-823 vide order dated 13.3.1984 along with eight other persons who were also holding the same post as that of the petitioner. Since the petitioner and several other employees were regularly demanding rationalization of the promotion policy but when the same did not evoke any response the Union raised an industrial 2 W.P(S) No. 5437 of 2016 dispute but it ended in a failure and ultimately vide notification dated 13.1.1989 the dispute was referred for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi in the following terms:- ”Whether amendment is required in promotion rule available for the workmen of Marine Diesel Plant of M/s Garden Reach Ship Builders and Engineers Ltd. situated at Ranchi? If so, what should be its structure?” 4. In the reference case, which was numbered as Reference Case No. 5/89 an Award was passed on 25.5.1993 wherein the Management was directed to make an amendment in their promotion policy and to maintain industrial peace, the provisions should be made to the effect that the vacancy occurring in the higher grade will be filled up immediately by the workman on completion of maximum four years of service in each grade besides fulfilling other conditions required for promotion from one grade to another grade and that on completion of eight years in a particular grade by the workmen, time bound promotion would be given to the workmen. Against the Award dated 25.5.1993, passed in
Decision
W.P.S. No. 4334 of 2008 which was disposed of on 21.10.11 with a direction to the appropriate authority to dispose of the appeal within a stipulated period. The appeal thereafter was considered and disposed of on 2.12.2011 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner even after disposal of the appeal had made several representations before the concerned authority for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade with effect from 1.1.1992 but the same has not been acted upon. 5. It has been submitted by Mrs. M.M. Pal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the benefits of promotion in terms of the Award dated 25.5.1993 has been extended to other similarly situated persons by denying the same to the petitioner. The petitioner should have been promoted to the post of Assistant Grade in the year 1991 in terms of the Award. Mrs. Pal had submitted that Hindi typing allowance which was being regularly paid to the petitioner has been illegally stopped once the petitioner has been placed in the lower grade of LDC. 6. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has submitted that the petitioner was called for written test/interview for promotion from Upper Division grade to Assistant Grade vide letter dated 1.5.1995 but the petitioner did not appear for the written test and thereafter the petitioner could not be considered as he was chargesheeted and the departmental proceeding came to a conclusion about the gross misconduct on the part of the petitioner inflicting a punishment of reduction to Lower Grade/Post. It has been submitted that the petitioner had joined in the Lower Grade/Post on 12.12.1997 and on completion of eight years, the petitioner was promoted from Lower Division Clerk to Upper Division Clerk with effect from 1.1.2006. 7. The petitioner through this writ application has made a prayer on considering his case for promotion to Assistant Grade. As the factual aspects reveal the promotion of the petitioner to Assistant Grade in terms of the Award dated 25.5.1993 was under consideration but the petitioner did not appear in the written test and in the meantime a proceeding for misconduct was initiated against the petitioner which was found proved and the petitioner was inflicted with a punishment of reduction in rank from Upper Division Clerk to Lower Division Clerk. The order of punishment has attained finality since the same was not challenged by the petitioner. On account of the non-cooperation of the petitioner and his subsequent punishment the case of the petitioner went out of the purview of the Award dated 25.5.1993 and such factor could also distinguish the case of the petitioner from the other employees who were granted promotion 4 W.P(S) No. 5437 of 2016 pursuant to the Award dated 25.5.1993. So far as Hindi typing allowance is concerned, it has been specifically stated in the counter affidavit that as per letter dated 15.3.1989 of the then senior personnel officer, Hindi typing allowance was payable to the petitioner as long as he did Hindi typing work over and above his normal duty but the said allowance automatically ceased to exist once the petitioner was chargesheeted and put under suspension as the petitioner could not have done the duties of a Hindi Typist. 8. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, we do not find any merit in this writ application, which accordingly stands dismissed. Rakesh/- (Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J)