Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Raju Didar Singh Gill & Ors vs Coal India Limited & Ors on 9 November, 2021
32 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
09.11.2021 CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
sb
Ct 23 APPELLATE SIDE
(Via Video Conference)
WPA 16132 of 2021
Raju Didar Singh Gill & Ors.
Vs.
Coal India Limited & Ors.
Mr. Soumya Majumder,
Ms. Ashmita Chakraborty,
Mr. Victor Chatterjee
.... For the petitioners.
Mr. Snehatosh Mazumdar,
Mr. Sudhakar Prasad
... For the respondents.
Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on
record.
Twenty-three writ petitioners claiming to have been
affected by the promotion order dated 27th August, 2021
(appearing as annexure P-10 at page 70 to the writ
petition) have, inter alia, challenged the same in the
instant writ petition. Court fees paid is sufficient.
The petitioners say that the promotional policy in
subsistence as on the date when the posts fell vacant is
the applicable policy to fill up such vacancies. A
subsequent policy cannot be implemented to fill in
vacancy which accrued prior to the subsequent policy
coming into effect. According to the petitioners Coal India
Limited (in short, CIL) in the instant case, have filled in
the vacancy which accrued till the year 2018 by following
a promotional policy which came into effect only on 5th
November, 2020. This according to the petitioners is
impermissible in law and particularly in view of the
Division Bench judgment and order of this Court dated
12th January, 2017, passed in FMA No.1029 of 2015 (Coal
India Limited & Ors. Vs. Anil Kr. Joshi & Ors.). The
petitioners therefor seek setting aside of the promotion
order dated 27th August, 2021. The petitioners also say
that by implementation of the promotional policy dated 5th
November, 2020, juniors to the petitioners have been
promoted to higher grade than that of the petitioners.
On behalf of the CIL, it is submitted that the policy
now in operation in CIL is "merit-cum-seniority" policy
and as such meritorious employees can be promoted to a
higher grade than his seniors. CIL also submits that this
is a policy matter which is for better administrative
purpose to augment efficiency by honouring the
meritorious employees. No interference should be made in
respect of such policy matters.
In reply, the petitioners say that the petitioners are
required to be considered in an effective and meaningful
manner for the promotion which has not been done in the
instant case and as such, CIL cannot shield its action by
contending that the promotion order under challenge is a
policy matter and requires no interference.
After considering the rival contention and the
materials on record, I find that the matter requires to be
heard after affording the respondents an opportunity to
disclose their stand on affidavit. At the same time, the
petitioners' interest is required to be protected so that the
writ petition does not become infructuous when it is
finally taken up for hearing.
Considering the prima facie case made out by the
petitioners and the balance of convenience and
inconvenience, I think justice will be sub-served if CIL is
directed to follow the promotional policy which was in
subsistence prior to the policy dated 5th November, 2020
for filling up the vacancies which arose prior to 5th
November, 2020 till the disposal of the writ petition.
It is also made clear that the promotions given to
the private respondents in terms of the promotion order
dated 27th August, 2021 shall abide by the result of the
present writ petition.
Affidavit-in-opposition shall be filed within four
weeks from date. Reply thereto, if any, shall be filed three
weeks thereafter.
Liberty to mention for inclusion in the list under the
heading, 'Hearing' after eight weeks.
(Arindam Mukherjee, J.)
