G.S. Bist & Others vs National Thermal Power ...
2012 Latest Caselaw 6312 Del

          *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                 Date of decision: 19th October, 2012

+                               W.P.(C) No.2962/1999

      G.S. BIST & OTHERS                                    ..... Petitioners
                     Through:         None.

                                   Versus

    NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LIMITED
                                        ..... Respondent

Through: Mr. S.K. Taneja, Sr. Adv. with Mr Puneet Taneja aned Mr. Anand Kr.

Singh, Advs.

CORAM :-

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

1. The petition seeks a direction to the respondent to "release the

promotion of the employees mentioned in the list attached to the petition as

Annexure-„A‟ and „A-1‟ to the next higher grade/cadre on completion of

eligibility period of 5 years from the dates of their joining as specified in

column I of the aforesaid list in accordance with laid out/declared personnel

policy of promotion of the respondents"; a further direction to the

respondent to release benefits consequential to the promotion is also sought;

yet further direction to the respondent, not to discriminate and disrupt the

channels in promotion is also sought.

2. Rule was issued on 14.05.1999. A counter affidavit has been filed by

the respondent to which no rejoinder has been filed. In spite of the matter

having been shown on the board for a considerably long time, none has

appeared for the petitioners. Considering that the writ petition is of the year

1999, it is not deemed appropriate to await the petitioners any further and

the senior counsel for the respondents has been heard and record perused.

3. The case set out in the petition by the two employees (petitioners

no.1&2) and by the NTPC Employees Union (Petitioner No. 3) is that

though the respondent has a "Promotion Policy clearly determining the

promotion channels available to all the employees", but is not granting

promotion to the employees in Grade W1 and Grade W2 in terms of the

Policy, thereby resulting in stagnation of such employees. It is yet further

pleaded, that as per the Policy eligibility period for promotion from category

W1 to W2 is of 5 years; that there is no change in the nature of job and

responsibilities of the employees in Grade W1 and Grade W2 and the sole

criteria for such promotion is seniority of 5 years; and that only upgradation

on such promotion is to the extent of Rs.40/- odd per month. The petitioner

contends that the respondent is not granting such promotion after 5 years and

is letting the employees in Grade W1 stagnate for more than 10 years. In

support of such pleas, it is stated that the petitioner No.1 joined on 2.3.1977

as W1 employee but was not promoted after 5 years in the year 1982 and his

promotion was granted only on 1.7.1987. Similarly, qua petitioner No.2, it

is stated that he joined on 23.9.1989 in Grade W1 and though was entitled to

promotion after 5 years w.e.f 23.9.1994, but had not yet been promoted till

the filing of the petition in or about May 1999. Annexures „A‟ and „A-1‟ to

the petition give instances and particulars of other such employees. It is thus

contended that the promotion from Grade W1 to Grade W2 are being given

at the whim and fancy of the respondent and in violation of the said Policy.

It is yet further contended that though all promotions in law are subject to

vacancy, but the said principle does not apply inasmuch as the workers of

the category W1 and W2 do the same work. It is further pleaded that the

criteria in the Policy of a test for such promotion is meaningless when there

is no change in the nature of job and responsibility and the respondent itself

has not been conducting test and the test is only a formality. It is further

urged that no reservation what so ever is provided in such promotion.

4. The respondent in its counter affidavit has pleaded that the channels

for promotion under the Promotion Policy, are applicable only for supervisor

and workmen and not for all employees; that the Promotion Policy

prescribes the minimum length of service required to be rendered by an

employee in his existing grade which is termed as eligibility period for

consideration for promotion and that the minimum eligibility period for

consideration of promotion from Grade W1 to Grade W2 is 5 years;

however promotions are to be effected only against vacant sanctioned posts.

It is pleaded that the academic qualification required at the induction level

for attendants is 8th class pass and not illiterate; that for Malis and Sweepers,

there is no channel of promotion to Grade W2 and they are placed in Grade

W2 grade on completion of 10 years under the „Service Linked Placement

Scheme‟ in which they are given only a higher pay scale which is personal

to them. It is yet further the case of the respondent that seniority is only one

of the factors for determining promotion as all promotions are effected only

against vacant sanctioned posts and are not automatic; as per the Promotion

Policy the promotions are on seniority-cum-merit basis giving relative

weightage for different factors while considering merits; that the period of 5

years mentioned in the petition is the minimum required period to be eligible

for considering for promotion to the next higher grade and it is not as if on

completion of the said period mentioned in the Policy there has to be an

automatic promotion. It is further pleaded that to encourage employees to

attain higher academic and technical qualifications an "Incentive Scheme for

Acquiring Higher/Additional Qualifications" exists.

5. The Promotion Policy has been filed along with the writ petition. The

senior counsel for the respondent has argued that the promotion channels as

contained therein is for skilled workmen i.e. those employeed in boiler

operation or mechanical maintenance of the main plant or in trade fitting and

is not for unskilled workmen, who do not have the prescribed minimum

qualification of class 8 th. It is contended that the petitioners No. 1 and 2 do

not have the minimum qualification of 8th class pass and the Promotion

Policy is not applicable to them and such workers are promoted from Grade

W1 to Grade W2 under the Service Linked Placement Scheme. It is yet

further argued that as far as the skilled workers or unskilled workers from

the technical department who qualify the minimum qualification of 8 th class

pass are concerned, the promotion from category W1 to W2 is after 5 years

and subject to passing of a test. It is thus argued that the petition has been

filed under a misconception that unskilled workers working in non-technical

department are entitled to automatic promotion after a period of 5 years.

6. The contentions of the senior counsel for the respondent are found to

be in terms of the Promotion Policy filed by the petitioners themselves. The

claim in the petition is thus found to be in contravention of the documents

filed by the petitioners themselves. I may highlight that the petition neither

challenges the Promotion Policy nor seeks a direction to the respondent for

framing a Promotion Policy for unskilled workers in the unskilled

departments and is only seeking implementation of the existing Policy.

However, no error as urged in the writ petition in implementation of the said

Policy having been found, the petition is dismissed.

No costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

OCTOBER 19, 2012 „Aj‟