P.C. Jain vs The Chairman, Steel Authority Of ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 1795 Del

         *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                       Date of decision: 28th March, 2011

+                              W.P.(C) 2679/2004

%        P.C. JAIN                                          .... Petitioner
                            Through:      Mr. A.P. Dhamija, Advocate
                                   Versus
         THE CHAIRMAN, STEEL AUTHORITY
         OF INDIA LTD. & ANR.                 ....Respondents
                       Through: Mr. Siddharth Yadav & Mr. K.B.
                                Thakur, Advocates
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may
         be allowed to see the judgment?                     NO

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?              NO

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported             NO
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner joined the then Hindustan Steel Pvt. Ltd. as a

Senior Operative Trainee on 11th January, 1959 and was on 12th

January, 1962 promoted as a Assistant Melter and in 1963 as Assistant

Foreman, a Class-1 officer post. The respondent Steel Authority of

India Ltd. (SAIL) is the successor of the said M/s Hindustan Steel Pvt.

Ltd. The services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated

21st January, 1976. The petitioner along with certain other officers

similarly terminated represented against the said termination and a

High Powered Committee was constituted to look into the said

termination. The said High Powered Committee recommended the

case of the petitioner for re-appointment. However, the respondent

issued an offer of re-appointment to the petitioner as a fresh entrant and

which was accepted by the petitioner without prejudice to his rights

and contentions. The petitioner again represented that he was entitled

to be re-appointed with all consequential benefits and not as a fresh

entrant. Not meeting with any success, the petitioner filed W.P.(C)

No.2046/1983 in this Court for quashing of his order of re-appointment

dated 24th December, 1980 as a fresh appointment and for direction to

the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits

including seniority, continuity, promotions and other monetary

benefits.

2. Another employee / officer of the respondent viz. Mr. P.C. Jha

had also filed W.P.(C) No.2044/1983 also challenging his re-

appointment as a fresh entrant and seeking re-appointment with all

consequential benefits. The writ petition filed by the said Mr. P.C. Jha

was allowed vide order dated 6th November, 1998; and the order in so

far as re-appointing Mr. P.C. Jha as a fresh entrant was quashed and the

said Mr. P.C. Jha was held entitled to all consequential benefits.

3. W.P.(C) No.2046/1983 preferred by the petitioner was also

allowed vide order dated 20th November, 1998 on the same terms as the

writ petition aforesaid of Mr. P.C. Jha.

4. The respondent in compliance of the orders aforesaid, though

made payments to both, the petitioner and Mr. P.C. Jha, but did not

grant the promotions to which both of them claimed entitled to. Both,

the petitioner and Mr. P.C. Jha, filed contempt petitions being CCP

No.509/1999 and CCP No.510/1999 in this Court. Vide orders in the

said contempt petitions, the respondent was directed to consider the

case of the petitioner and Mr. P.C. Jha for promotion. The respondent

in compliance of the said order constituted an Expert Committee and

which submitted its report. In terms of the said report, though some

further payment was released to the petitioner and Mr. P.C. Jha but

according to the petitioner as well as Mr. P.C. Jha, they were not

granted the promotion to which they claimed to be entitled to. The

contempt petitions were disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to

challenge the report of the Expert Committee so constituted to consider

their case for promotion by a separate proceeding if so desired.

5. The aforesaid lead to the filing of the present writ petition. Mr.

P.C. Jha also filed W.P.(C) No.5709/2003 in this regard.

6. The writ petition being W.P.(C) No.5709/2003 filed by Mr. P.C.

Jha was allowed vide judgment dated 21st March, 2005 holding that

since Mr. P.C. Jha had been denied promotion only on the ground of

the earlier termination, he would be entitled to promotion from the date

on which the person immediately junior to him or of the same seniority

had been promoted.

7. The respondent preferred LPA No.1/2006 against the aforesaid

judgment in favour of Mr. P.C. Jha. The said writ petition was allowed

vide judgment dated 23rd March, 2006. It was held:

(i) That the Single Judge while allowing the writ petition of

Mr. P.C. Jha had not considered that promotion could not

be claimed as a matter of right and had not gone into the

question as to whether there was any error in the report of

the Expert Committee holding Mr. P.C. Jha to be not

entitled to promotion; that the reasons given by the Expert

Committee had not been gone into by the Single Judge in

allowing the petition.

(ii) After examining the rules of promotion of the respondent,

it was held that the promotions claimed were not as a

matter of right or as a matter of seniority only and no error

was found with the reasons given by the Expert

Committee, of Mr. P.C. Jha on merits having no claim for

promotion.

8. The review petition of the judgment allowing the appeal of the

respondent against Mr. P.C. Jha was also dismissed on 7 th August,

2007.

9. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the present petition remained

pending.

10. Even though the reasons given by the Expert Committee for

denying claim of Mr. P.C. Jha and of the petitioner are different but the

counsel for the petitioner in spite of opportunity has been unable to

point out any error therein or as to how, what has been held vide

judgment dated 23rd March, 2006 in LPA No.1/2006 (supra) qua Mr.

P.C. Jha would not apply to the present petition. The counsel for the

respondent has of course contended that the matter is identical and

covered by the judgments in P.C. Jha's case which has attained finality.

11. I have nevertheless examined the report of the Expert Committee

qua the petitioner (Annexure-C to the petition). The Expert Committee

has examined the case of the petitioner vis-à-vis the other officers in

the same line of promotion with the petitioner. It has been found that

prior to his termination on 21st January, 1976, the petitioner had been

considered for promotion from time to time but had continued in the

grade of Foreman; that the promotion from Foreman to the next higher

post i.e. General Foreman was subject to availability of vacancy and on

the recommendation of a Selection Committee to assess the suitability

on the basis of qualification, experience, record of service, confidential

reports and written examination or interview or both; that there was

thus no scope for automatic promotion and promotions had always

been regulated through written examination or interview or both; that

for the purposes of promotion to the post of General Foreman for the

years 1976, 1977, 1978 & 1979, the case of the petitioner on the basis

of his preceding CCR ratings / qualification etc. was considered and

the petitioner was not found fit for promotion to the post of General

Foreman during that period as he was having poor CCR ratings during

the relevant period and sometime even adverse CCRs; that the

promotions to which the petitioner was entitled as per seniority were

however granted to him till his superannuation on 30th June, 1995;

similarly, the other promotions on the basis of continuity of services to

which the petitioner was found entitled to after re-appointment were

also granted to him.

12. The matter is thus found to be squarely covered by the judgment

in P.C. Jha's case. The petitioner has not made out any case for

judicial review of the report of the Expert Committee and the matter

being fully covered, the writ petition is dismissed. Even though the

petitioner kept this writ petition alive notwithstanding the judgment in

P.C. Jha's case and on account of similarity wherewith this petition

was filed, but I refrain from imposing any costs on the petitioner.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) MARCH 28, 2011 'gsr' (Corrected and released on 18th April, 2011)