Raju Prasad vs Damodar Valley Corporation
2026 Latest Caselaw 631 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Raju Prasad vs Damodar Valley Corporation on 3 February, 2026

Author: Deepak Roshan

Bench: Deepak Roshan

                                                      2026:JHHC:2842
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                W.P.(S) No. 12 of 2016
                            .........

1. Raju Prasad, son of late Mohan Prasad, resident of Matri Aagya, Kumhar Toli, New Colony, Near House of Shankar Misthan, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S.-Dist- Hazaribagh, Pin 825301 (Jharkhand).

2. Satyakam, son of late Rajendra Prasad Yadav, residing at 'SATDAL, C/o. Ram Naresh Gope, Mission School Road, Near Sandwell Nursing Home, P.O., P.S. & District - Hazaribagh, Pin 825301 (Jharkhand).

3. Sunil Kumar Sinha, son of late Kailash Prasad Sinha, residing at Qr No- D.T-261, H.E.C Township, P.O. & Ranchi Pin 834004 P.S.- Dhurwa, District (Jharkhand). ..... Petitioner (s) Versus

1. Damodar Valley Corporation, through its Chairman, having its office at DVC Towers, VIP Road, P.O. - VIP road, P.S. Bidhannagar, District Kolkata, Pin 700054 (West Bengal)

2. Member Secretary Cum Member Finance, Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Towers, VIP Road, P.O. VIP road, P.S. Bidhannagar, District Kolkata, Pin 700054 (West Bengal)

3. Chief Engineer-I Cum Director (HR), Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Towers, VIP Road, P.O. - VIP road, P.S. Bidhannagar, District Kolkata, Pin 700054 (West Bengal)

4. General Manager (HR), Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Towers, VIP Road, P.O. VIP road, P.S. Bidhannagar, District Kolkata, Pin 700054 (West Bengal)

5. Deputy Director (HR), Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Towers, VIP Road, P.O. VIP road, P.S. Bidhannagar, District Kolkata, Pin 700054 (West Bengal)

6. Lalan Prasad Gupta, son of not known to the petitioner, presently posted as Manager-Fin (Addl Chief Accounts Officer), Quarter no. type 2/6, near officer station club, Damodar Valley Corporation, Bokarao Thermal Power Station, P.O. & P.S Bokaro Thermal, District Bokaro, Pin 829107 (Jharkhand).

..... Respondent(s) .........

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN .......

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate Mr. Kanishka Deo, Advocate

2026:JHHC:2842 For the Resp.-State : Ms. Khalida Haya Rashmi, Advocate .........

C.A.V. ON: 27/01/2026 PRONOUNCED ON: 03/02/2026 Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner

and Ms. Khalida Haya Rashmi, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent

Corporation-Respondent No. 1 to 5. Though a Vakalanama has

been filed on behalf of the Respondent No.6, but no one turned

up for argument. Since the matter is almost 10 years old,

accordingly, with consent of the parties the Court heard the

matter on 27.01.2026 and kept the case for pronouncement of

the judgment.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the

petitioners for quashing of letter dated 16.12.2015 issued

by Respondent No. 5, whereby the request for restoration of

seniority of Petitioner No. 1 was rejected, and consequently

to restore the seniority of the Petitioners in accordance with

Clause 12 of the relevant Office Memoranda dated

09.08.2007 and 02.01.2008 by re-designating/promoting

them as Senior Accounts Officers with effect from

13.08.2006, being the date on which Respondent No. 6 was

promoted.

Brief Facts & Case of the Petitioners: -

3. The petitioners were appointed as Accounts Officers

pursuant to an advertisement, and thereafter vide

appointment letters dated 10.02.2006 they were given

2026:JHHC:2842 appointment. Respondent No. 6, Lalan Prasad Gupta, was

appointed as Management Trainee in the pay scale of Rs.

8000-275-13500 on 21.07.1998 and, upon completion of

training, was confirmed as Assistant Accounts Officer in the

same pay scale on 17.11.1999. Thereafter, he continued to

work as Assistant Accounts Officer in the Accounts &

Finance Cadre without any promotion and was posted

under the supervision of the Petitioners, reporting to them

for official purposes.

4. At the time when the Petitioners joined as Accounts

Officers in the higher pay scale; Respondent No. 6

continued to hold the post of Assistant Accounts Officer in

the lower rank. As on 01.01.2007, i.e., prior to the

implementation of the Uniform Career Progression (UCP)

Scheme, Respondent No. 6 remained an Assistant Accounts

Officer, whereas all Petitioners were working as Accounts

Officers.

5. The Gradation List of Officers of the Finance &

Accounts Cadre published on 10.07.2006 reflected the

Petitioners as Accounts Officers in the higher scale of Rs.

8000-275-14050, while Respondent No. 6 was shown as

Assistant Accounts Officer in the lower scale of Rs. 8000-

275-13500, clearly ranking below the Petitioners.

2026:JHHC:2842

6. In the year 2007, the Damodar Valley Corporation

introduced the Uniform Career Progression Scheme vide

Office Memorandum dated 09.08.2007, applicable to

officers on roll as on or before 01.01.2007. The scheme was

subsequently clarified by Office Memorandum dated

02.01.2008, which categorically provided that inter se

seniority as on 01.01.2007 shall be strictly maintained and

that no junior officer shall supersede a senior merely due to

application of the scheme; in the event of any anomaly, the

pay or scale of the senior was required to be stepped up to

restore seniority.

7. Subsequent to the aforementioned, a clarification was

issued to the said scheme by a three-member committee,

wherein it was again clarified that merely due to application

of the scheme; in the event of any anomaly, the pay or scale

of the senior was required to be stepped up to restore

seniority.

8. Despite these explicit safeguards, Respondent No. 6,

having remained continuously in the scale of Assistant

Accounts Officer since his appointment, was granted

promotion under the UCP Scheme to the post of Senior

Accounts Officer in the pay scale of Rs.10,000-15,200/-

with effect from 13.08.2006. Subsequently, he was further

promoted to the post of Manager (Finance), i.e., Additional

2026:JHHC:2842 Chief Accounts Officer, in the pay scale of Rs.12000-

16500/- with effect from 13.08.2012.

9. Due to the aforementioned disturbance caused in the

seniority due to implementation of the UCP Scheme, the

Petitioners thereafter made several representations to the

concerned Respondent Authorities.

As no decision was communicated to the Petitioners

despite considerable delay, Petitioner No. 1 invoked the RTI,

Act 2005 and obtained copies of the note-sheets and noting

relating to the promotion of Respondent No. 6, Lalan Prasad

Gupta, as well as the file concerning the representation of

Petitioner No. 1, from which it is evident that, while

considering the case of Respondent No. 6 under the UCP

Scheme, the Joint Director (Personnel), in his note dated

07.07.2010, recorded as follows:

"....... It is also to mention that as per UCP Order the juniors cannot supersede the seniors, even those who have joined as Accounts Officer/Finance Officer after joining of Shri Lalan Pd. Gupta as AAO. The gradation list is enclosed herewith and a draft order of promotion of Shri L.P. Gupta is also placed in the file of page 99/C for kind approval of competent authority."

Thereafter, the file was again sent to the Jt. Director

Personnel (DPC), who made the following comments:

"Now coming to the legal spectrum, Shri L.P. Gupta, AAO, BTPS is eligible as per the Office Memorandum No.PL-T/Group- A(UCP)-168 dated 09.08.2007.

Secondly, he is also very much eligible to be considered for upgradation to the scale of Accounts Officer from the date of joining DVC as Management Trainee (Finance & Accounts) and confirmation as Asstt. Accounts Officer in the same Gr. A cadre Thirdly, Shri L.P. Gupta cannot be deprived of his legitimate claim on the pretext that the officer senior to him may claim step up of pay from the

2026:JHHC:2842 date his re-designation as Sr. AO. Neither, the seniors to Shri L.P. Gupta may be deprived of their expected claim, if any in commensuration with the provisions of Cause-3(d) of OM No.PL-PO/LWO/EO/VO/AO (HR Professionals)-06 dated 02.01.2008 as the seniority as on 01.01.07 needs to be maintained as per speaking order in the Clause-12 of OM dated 09.08.07.

Further, there is no ground on which the claim of Shri Gupta may be denied. Denial of claim of either party may create legal complications due to denial of the legitimate claim arising out of the redesignation of Shri L.P. Gupta as there is nothing personal in the service matters."

10. On the basis of the said noting, Respondent No. 6 was

promoted to the post of Senior Accounts Officer with effect

from 13.08.2006 and thereafter to Manager (Finance) with

effect from 13.08.2012; however, despite clear

recommendations and mandatory provisions of the Office

Memorandum dated 09.08.2007 and 02.01.2008 requiring

strict maintenance of inter se seniority, the seniority of the

Petitioners was not restored, resulting in a junior officer

being placed above them solely due to application of the

UCP Scheme.

11. Subsequently Petitioner No. 1 even applied and

obtained note sheet on the application of the Petitioner

under RTI Act and the same revealed that the Addl.

Director, DVC stated that the question of seniority between

Shri Raju Prasad and Shri L. P. Gupta is governed by

Clause 12 of the UCP Office Memorandum dated

09.08.2007, which mandates preservation of inter se

seniority as on 01.01.2007. As the Petitioners joined as

Accounts Officer on 01.03.2006 and was senior to

2026:JHHC:2842 Respondent No. 6 who was then an Assistant Accounts

Officer, the subsequent upgradation of Respondent No. 6

under Clause 5 of the UCP Scheme read with Clause 3(a) of

the clarificatory Office Memorandum dated 02.01.2008

cannot override or disturb the seniority position protected

under Clause 12.

12. Despite clear recommendations recorded in the

personal file of Petitioner No. 1 for restoration of seniority,

the file was forwarded to the Senior Additional Director (HR)

on 11.08.2014 for issuance of the requisite order. However,

after retaining the file for over four months, the Senior

Additional Director (HR), disregarding all earlier noting,

merely observed that UCP-related matters would be

considered in due course with the approval of the

competent authority and directed return of the file without

any decision.

13. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioners met the Secretary-

cum-Member (Finance), who assured necessary action and

advised submission of detailed representations.

Accordingly, Petitioners Nos. 1 and 3 submitted

representations on 22.05.2015, and Petitioner No. 2 on

26.05.2015. When no action followed, Petitioner No. 1

approached the Chairman, Damodar Valley Corporation,

with a detailed representation dated 24.08.2015, followed

2026:JHHC:2842 by a reminder on 17.10.2015.

Thereafter, by communication dated 16.12.2015, the

Deputy Director (HR) informed the Petitioners, without

assigning any reasons, that their request for restoration of

seniority had not been acceded to by the competent

authority; which is in clear violation of the UCP Scheme

which expressly mandates protection of inter-se seniority as

it stood on 01.01.2007. Clause 12 of the OM dated

09.08.2007 (Annexure-5 of writ Petition), Clause 3(d) of the

clarificatory OM dated 02.01.2008 (Annexure-6 of writ

Petition), and Clause (a) of the OM dated 22.04.2013

uniformly provide that seniority shall not be disturbed by

application of the scheme and that any anomaly caused by

upgradation of juniors must be rectified by stepping up the

senior.

Case of the Respondents: -

14. Learned counsel for the respondents filed its counter

affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit, wherein they

contended that in terms of Clause 5 of the UCP Office

Memorandum dated 09.08.2007, read with Clause 3(a) of

the clarificatory Office Memorandum dated 02.01.2008,

professionally qualified Group 'A' officers are entitled to

upgradation to the pay scale of Rs. 8000-14050 (M-2) from

2026:JHHC:2842 the date of their joining in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500

(M-1). Accordingly, Respondent No. 6, Shri L. P. Gupta, a

professionally qualified Finance Executive, was upgraded as

Accounts Officer (M-2) from the date of his joining as

Management Trainee/Assistant Accounts Officer (M-1).

It was further contended that such upgradation of Shri

L. P. Gupta took effect from 13.08.1998, which is prior to

the joining of Shri Raju Prasad as Accounts Officer on

01.03.2006, and therefore Shri L. P. Gupta is senior. The

Respondents assert that the competent authority, after due

consideration and a speaking order passed on 08.12.2015,

upheld this position, which was duly communicated to the

Petitioners on 16.12.2015.

15. The further stand of the Respondents is that at

the relevant time, Management Trainee (M-1) was the entry-

level post in the Finance cadre for candidates possessing

professional qualifications such as CA/ICWA/MBA

(Finance), and that the post of Assistant Accounts Officer

was elevated to Accounts Officer in 2003 owing to similarity

in qualifications for M-1 and M-2 levels. Since both Shri

Gupta and Shri Prasad possess similar qualifications, it

would be inequitable to place a person who joined in 2006

above an officer who joined in 1998 merely due to a

subsequent change in the induction level. The UCP Scheme,

2026:JHHC:2842 according to the Respondents, was intended to ensure

uniform career progression and not to disadvantage earlier

entrants like Shri L. P. Gupta.

Finding of the Court: -

16. Having heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and

after going through the documents available on records, it

transpires that the Respondents' assertion that Petitioners

and Respondent No. 6 stood on equal footing prima facie

appears to be incorrect. The post of Accounts Officer (M2)

was filled through an all-India selection process initiated in

2004, open to both internal and external candidates

possessing professional qualifications. (Annexure-23 of the

Rejoinder Affidavit). From records it appears that

Respondent No. 6, though an internal candidate, failed to

qualify in the selection, whereas Petitioners were duly

selected and appointed as Accounts Officer (M2) on

01.03.2006.

17. The Respondents have falsely claimed that the

post of Assistant Accounts Officer (M-1) was elevated to

Accounts Officer (M-2) in 2003 with retrospective effect from

the date of joining; whereas in reality both posts have

always existed separately and continue to be so, though

now redesignated as Executive (Finance) and Assistant

2026:JHHC:2842 Manager (Finance) respectively. Respondent No. 6 was

appointed as Assistant Accounts Officer (M-1) in 1998 and

remained so till June 2011, as is evident from the gradation

list dated 10.07.2006 (Annexure-4 of the Writ Petition) and

his promotion order dated 15.06.2011, wherein he is still

shown as Assistant Accounts Officer, one post and one

scale below the Petitioners.

18. Further, in 2004 the Respondents issued a vacancy

notice for the post of Accounts Officer (M-2), permitting

Assistant Accounts Officers (M-1) to apply, pursuant to

which Respondent No. 6 applied but was not selected, an

eventuality that would not have arisen had the M-1 post

already been elevated in 2003. It was only by retrospective

upgradation under the UCP Scheme that Respondent No. 6

was granted Accounts Officer (M-2) status from his initial

date of joining, thereby unlawfully disturbing the

Petitioners' seniority in clear violation of Clause 12 of the

UCP Scheme, which categorically prohibits any disturbance

of seniority due to its application.

19. The Respondents have themselves admitted that as on

01.01.2007, i.e., the cut-off date for implementation of the

UCP Scheme, Petitioner No. 1 was serving as Accounts

Officer (M2), while Respondent No. 6 continued as Assistant

Accounts Officer (M1). The pre-UCP gradation list dated

2026:JHHC:2842 10.07.2006 conclusively reflects this hierarchy, placing

Petitioner No. 1 above Respondent No. 6.

20. The UCP Scheme expressly mandates protection of

inter-se seniority as it stood on 01.01.2007. Clause 12 of

the OM dated 09.08.2007 (Annexure-5 of writ Petition),

Clause 3(d) of the clarificatory OM dated 02.01.2008

(Annexure-6 of writ Petition), and Clause (a) of the OM

dated 22.04.2013 uniformly provide that seniority shall not

be disturbed by application of the scheme and that any

anomaly caused by upgradation of juniors must be rectified

by stepping up the senior.

21. Clause 12 of the OM dated 09.08.2007 is reproduced

below for ready reference:

'12. Seniority Position:

The seniority position in no case shall be disturbed due to application of this scheme. For this purpose the seniority position as on the date of implementation of this scheme shall be maintained. In other words, no junior in the panel shall be allowed to supersede his senior mere on the ground of the application of the scheme.'

22. Clause 3(a) and 3(d) of the clarificatory OM dated 02.01.2008 is reproduced below for ready reference:

(a) The personnel Officer/L.W.O/Adm Officer/Vigilance Officer/Estate Officer/equivalent having the qualifications as mentioned in para-5 of the UCP for Group "A" as cited above shall be upgaraded to the pay scale of Rs8000-14050 (Revised) from the date they joined as personnel Officer/L.W.O/Adm Officer/Vigilance Officer/Estate Officer/equivalent in the pay scale of Rs 8000-13,500/-.

d) Inter-se-seniority as on 01-01-07 shall be strictly maintained, in the event, by application of these recommendations, the pay of junior becoming more than senior or the junior reaching the scale higher than the senior, the pay or scale of pay shall simultaneously be stepped up for restoration of inter-se-seniority.

23. Thus, while upgrading Respondent No. 6 under Clause

3(a) of the OM dated 02.01.2008, the Respondents

2026:JHHC:2842 deliberately failed to apply Clause 3(d) of the very same OM,

which mandates restoration of seniority. Such selective

reliance on beneficial provisions while ignoring mandatory

safeguards is arbitrary, discriminatory, and legally

impermissible.

24. The Respondents' claim that Respondent No. 6 was

upgraded to M2 in 2003 is demonstrably false. Records

obtained under RTI show that Respondent No. 6 failed in

the M1-to-M2 selection held in 2004, whereas Petitioner No.

1 succeeded and joined as Accounts Officer (M2) on

01.03.2006.

25. The records further suggest that Petitioner No. 1

invoked the Right to Information Act, 2005 and obtained

the relevant note-sheets, which unequivocally demonstrate

that while considering the case of Respondent No. 6 under

the UCP Scheme, the Joint Director (Personnel), in his note

dated 07.07.2010 (Annexure-13 series of the writ Petition),

categorically recorded that juniors cannot supersede

seniors under the UCP Scheme and that seniority reflected

in the gradation list must be preserved. The subsequent

noting of the Joint Director (Personnel-DPC) further

clarified that although Respondent No. 6 was eligible for

upgradation under the UCP Scheme, such upgradation

could not prejudice the rights of seniors and that inter se

2026:JHHC:2842 seniority as on 01.01.2007 was required to be strictly

maintained in terms of Clause 12 of the OM dated

09.08.2007 read with Clause 3(d) of the OM dated

02.01.2008.

26. Despite these clear and binding recommendations,

Respondent No. 6 was promoted to the post of Senior

Accounts Officer with effect from 13.08.2006 and thereafter

to Manager (Finance) with effect from 13.08.2012, without

concomitant restoration of the Petitioners' seniority, thereby

placing a junior above the Petitioners solely by application

of the UCP Scheme.

Subsequent note-sheets obtained under RTI clearly

reveals that the Additional Director, DVC, expressly

recorded that the seniority dispute between Petitioner No. 1

and Respondent No. 6 was governed by Clause 12 of the

UCP OM dated 09.08.2007 and that since Petitioner No. 1

had joined as Accounts Officer on 01.03.2006, when

Respondent No. 6 was still an Assistant Accounts Officer,

the latter's upgradation under Clause 5 read with Clause

3(a) could not override or disturb the protected seniority

position as on 01.01.2007.

Notwithstanding these categorical findings recorded on

file, the matter was merely forwarded to the Senior

Additional Director (HR) on 11.08.2014 without issuance of

2026:JHHC:2842 the requisite order, rendering the action of the Respondents

arbitrary and contrary to the UCP Scheme.

27. The Respondents' reliance on a gradation list issued

after UCP implementation is wholly misplaced. Seniority

under the UCP Scheme must be determined strictly with

reference to the position as on 01.01.2007, and not on the

basis of altered gradation lists prepared after the scheme

disturbed the Petitioners' seniority.

28. The Respondents' plea that restoration of seniority is

subject to completion of a minimum period in the lower

grade is unsupported by any circular or policy. On the

contrary, Clause 12 of the OM dated 09.08.2007

categorically prohibits disturbance of seniority in any case.

29. Further, due to non-restoration of seniority, Petitioners

suffered cascading prejudice, including denial of timely

promotions and interview opportunities, and is presently

compelled to work under Respondent No. 6, who was

admittedly junior and had failed in the M2 selection.

30. It appears that the Respondents have placed only

selective portions of the office file before this Court,

suppressing subsequent noting which clearly support

restoration of seniority. Notably, senior officers later

corrected earlier erroneous observations and clarified that

2026:JHHC:2842 seniority restoration is independent of subsequent

promotion policies.

31. It is further relevant to mention herein that in fact, the

same Manager (HR), who gave Note #7 dated 21-

22.08.2024, later corrected himself in Note #24, clarifying

that his earlier remarks related only to M5-M6 promotion

under the new 2023 Policy, and not to seniority restoration.

He specifically stated that restoration of inter-se seniority

pertains to gradation lists/panels and does not fall under

the purview of the Policy Group. Further, in Note #21, the

Senior GM (HR) also recorded that the Manager (HR)'s

earlier note was incorrect.

32. The respondents themselves had constituted a high-

powered committee comprising of the senior most executive

functionaries including a GM-level committee with

representatives from the Finance and Pay & Audit

Departments to examine the grievances of the petitioners in

detail. The record further transpires that after detailed

scrutiny, the committee submitted its report (Annexure -19

filed through a supplementary affidavit dated 12.08.2024),

categorically and unanimously recommending restoration of

the seniority of the petitioners in full conformity with the

UCP-scheme.

2026:JHHC:2842 It is also relevant to mention herein that as will be

apparent from the perusal of orders dated 25.09.2024,

15.10.2024, on previous occasions, the respondents

themselves had sought adjournments on the pretext of

awaiting the report of the high-powered committee, but

despite receipt of the report and the recommendations, the

respondents avoided to implement the same.

33. In view of the facts stated here in above, the

petitioners are entitled for restoration of their seniority as

was existing on 01.07.2007 i.e. the date on which the UCP

scheme came into existence with all consequential benefits.

34. As a result, the instant writ application stands

allowed. Pending I.A.s, if any, also stands closed.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Dated:03 /02/2026 Amardeep/ N.A.F.R./A.F.R Uploaded 05.02.2026