Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rubin Raj K.V. vs Union Of India on 9 February, 2024

Author: Vivek Agarwal

Bench: Vivek Agarwal

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 9 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 27920 of 2018

BETWEEN:-
1. RUBIN RAJ K.V. S/O RAMESAN K., AGED ABOUT
33 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE (SUPERVISOR
S.P.M. HOSHANGABAD) R/O. QTR. NO. B-12, S.P.M
COLONY, HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. ANOOP K. S/O GANGADHARAN K., AGED ABOUT
33 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE (SUPERVISOR.
S.P.M.HOSHANGABAD) R/O QTR. NO.B-120, S.P.M.
COLONY, HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. A.K.MISHRA S/O L. K. MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 35
YEAR S , OCCUPATION: SERVICE (SUPERVISOR.
S.P.M.HOSHANGABAD) R/O QTR. NO.B-121, S.P.M.
COLONY, HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. NIKHIL BHASKAR S/O BHASKARAN, AGED ABOUT
33 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE (SUPERVISOR
S.P.M.HOSHANGABAD) R/O QTR. NO.B-98, S.P.M
COLONY, HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. J.JAYABAL S/O M.JEEVARTHINAM, AGED ABOUT
32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE (SUPERVISOR
S.P.M.HOSHANGABAD) R/O QTR. NO.B-114, S.P.M
COLONY, HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. SHOBHA MENON - SR. ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI K.N.
PETHIA - ADVOCATE)

AND
1. UNION OF INDIA THR SECRETARY MINISTRY OF
FINANCE DEPT. OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS ROOM
NO. 67-B, NORTH BLOCK (DELHI)

2. SECURITY PRINTING AND MINTING
CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD (CRATED BY GOVT.
OF INDIA UNDER THR STATUTORY PROVISIONS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TULSA SINGH
Signing time: 09-02-2024
18:36:33
2
AND DECISION OF THR COUNCIL OF MINISTERS)
WHOLLY OWNED BY GOVT. OF INDIA, THE. ITS
CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR, 16TH FLOOR,
JAWAHAR VYAPAR BHAWAN JANPATH NEW
DELHI

3. GENERAL MANAGER SECURITY PAPER MILLS (A
UNIT OF SECURITY PRINTING AND MINTING
CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD) WHOLLY OWNED
BY GOVT. OF INDIA, HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA
PRADESH)

4. SMT. ADITYA BHATT WORKING AS SUPERVISOR
SPM THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER SECURITY
PAPER MILLS DISTT. HOSHANGABAD (DELHI)

5. SHRI MAHENDRA KUMAR BORBAN WORKING
AS SUPERVISOR SPM THROUGH GENERAL
M A N A G E R SECURITY PAPER MILS DISTT.
HOSHANGABAD (DELHI)

6. SHRI KAMTA PRASAD DONGARE WORKING AS
SUPERVISOR SPM THROUGH GENERAL
M A N A G E R SECURITY PAPER MILL
HOSHANGABAD MP (DELHI)

7. SHRI AMOL KUMAR MOHANE WORKING AS
SUPERVISOR SPM THROUGH GENERAL
M A N A G E R SECURITY PAPER MILL
HOSHANGABAD MP (DELHI)

8. SHRI BISWADEEP SINGHA WORKING AS
SUPERVISOR SPM THROUGH GENERAL
M A N A G E R SECURITY PAPER MILL
HOSHANGABAD MP (DELHI)

9. SHRI RAVINDRA SINGH CHOUHAN WORKING AS
SUPERVISOR SPM THROUGH GENERAL
M A N A G E R SECURITY PAPER MILL
HOSHANGABAD MP (DELHI)

10. SHRI HIMANSHU MALVIYA WORKING AS
SUPERVISOR SPM THROUGH GENERAL
M A N A G E R SECURITY PAPER MILL
HOSHANGABAD MP (DELHI)

11. SHRI AMIT KUMAR WORKING AS SUPERVISOR
SPM THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER SECURITY
PAPER MILL HOSHANGABAD MP (DELHI)

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TULSA SINGH
Signing time: 09-02-2024
18:36:33
3
12. SHRI NEERAJ KUMAR DUBEY WORKING AS
SUPERVISOR SPM THROUGH GENERAL
M A N A G E R SECURITY PAPER MILL
HOSHANGABAD MP (DELHI)

13. SHRI PANKAJ KUMAR WORKING AS SUPERVISOR
SPM THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER SECURITY
PAPER MILL HOSHANGABAD MP (MADHYA
PRADESH)

14. SHRI ASHISH DEEPAK ATHIKAR WORKING AS
SUPERVISOR SPM THROUGH GENERAL
M A N A G E R SECURITY PAPER MILL
HOSHANGABAD MP (DELHI)

15. SHRI VIJAY KUMAR P. WORKING AS SUPERVISOR
SPM THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER SECURITY
PAPER MILL HOSHANGABAD MP (DELHI)

16. SHRI ANOOP KUMAR SINGH WORKING AS
SUPERVISOR SPM THROUGH GENERAL
M A N A G E R SECURITY PAPER MILL
HOSHANGABAD MP (DELHI)

17. SHRI SHIKARE NANDKISHOR WORKING AS
SUPERVISOR SPM THROUGH GENERAL
M A N A G E R SECURITY PAPER MILL
HOSHANGABAD MP (DELHI)

18. SHRI AJAY GOYAL WORKING AS SUPERVISOR
SPM THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER SECURITY
PAPER MILL HOSHANGABAD MP (MADHYA
PRADESH)

19. SHRI CHANDAN RAJA WORKING AS SUPERVISOR
SPM THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER SECURITY
PAPER MILL HOSHANGABAD MP (DELHI)

20. SHRI DEVENDRA KUMAR WORKING AS
SUPERVISOR SPM THROUGH GENERAL
M A N A G E R SECURITY PAPER MILL
HOSHANGABAD MP (DELHI)

21. SHRI MAYANK SHRIVASTAVA WORKING AS
SUPERVISOR SPM THROUGH GENERAL
M A N A G E R SECURITY PAPER MILL
HOSHANGABAD MP (DELHI)

.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ANAND NAYAK - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TULSA SINGH
Signing time: 09-02-2024
18:36:33
4

This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER

This writ petition is filed being aggrieved of the action of respondents in preparing a separate seniority list for the post of Supervisors on the basis of different plant and machines installed in the same Unit of Security Paper Mill Corporation India Limited.

2. Petitioners' contention is that Security Paper Mill Corporation India Limited has nine Units, out of which one is at Hoshangabad. Others are at Nashik, Dewas, Hyderabad, Mumbai, Noida, Kolkata. We are dealing with a case of employees of Security Paper Mill, Hoshangabad. They have four Wings namely Production Wing, Mechanical Wing, Electrical Wing and E&I (Electronic & Instrumentation) Wing. It is submitted that there are two cadres namely Corporate Cadre and Unit Cadre. It is pointed out that we are at present concerned with Unit Cadre as there is no controversy in regard to Corporate Cadre.

3. Petitioners' contention is that petitioners were recruited in terms of SPMCIL Recruitment Policy, 2012 wherein Clause-2.0(d) defines "Unit Cadre"

includes the posts of Supervisor, Staff Members and Industrial Workers for which recruitment is made by the Unit. Against this "Corporate Cadre"

includes the posts of Executive in various functional areas for which the recruitment is made by the Corporate Office.

4. Admittedly, in this petition issue is in regard to "Unit Cadre". Admittedly, advertisement was issued as contained in Annexure-P/1 for appointment of Chargeman (Production/Lab), Chargeman (Mechanical/Mould Plant AC & Refrigeration), Chargeman (Electrical/E&I). In pursuance to this,

advertisement which was issued in 2009, petitioners were given appointment on the post of Chargeman (Production).

5. This post of Chargeman was re-designated as that of Supervisor and, accordingly, another advertisement was issued when certain persons against whom petitioners have raised their grievance were given appointment on the post of Supervisor. However, there is no dispute on this fact that the post of Chargeman was re-designated as Supervisor (Mechanical), Supervisor (Electrical), Supervisor (E&I), Supervisor (Production).

6. The dispute started somewhere in the year 2015 when a new plant and machinery was installed for which permission was granted vide communication dated 5th March, 2012.

7. This permission was given by Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests and the subject of this permission dated 5th March, 2012 (Annexure-P/20) under the head of subject reads as under:

"Expansion of the Existing Paper Mill by installation of new CWBN Paper making Facilities in the existing permises of Village Phephartal and Khojanpur, Distt. Hoshangabad, Madhya Pradesh by M/s Security Paper Mill (A Unit of Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India Ltd, wholly owned by Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance) regarding Environmental Clearance."

Thus, from the Environmental Clearance permission contained Annexure- P/20 it is evident that plant and machinery which came to be known as Unit-5 was part of the expansion of the Existing Paper Mill namely Security Paper Mill, Hoshangabad.

8. Petitioners' contention is that certain persons including the petitioners who were working in the Production Department were shifted to the PM-5 Plant till 27/01/2016 by way of transfer. List of such employees which includes the petitioners is enclosed as Annexure-P/5.

9. Petitioners' grievance is that petitioners as well as private individuals who were appointed to work in PM-5 were given upgradation of pay scale, but, respondents in a clever manner created a bifurcation between the two classes of Supervisor by creating two separate seniority list, one for the erstwhile employees who were appointed as Chargeman/Supervisor for earlier four plant and machinery which were installed from 1968 onwards in the Security Paper Mill, Hoshangabad vis-a-vis the fifth plant and machinery which was installed somewhere in February, 2015 and that became the bone of contention.

10. Petitioners' contention is that they had sought information under Right to Information Act specifically asking the respondent authorities to clarify in following terms :-

"Please provide the details of order/letter/ instruction received from SPMCIL Corporate Office to create a common merit seniority of Supervisors joined SPM, Hoshangabad during the year 2013/14 against the advertisement No.4(15)/SUP/2012-13/Adv.28, dated 17/05/2012 and No.2(167)/Admn./2013- 14/Adv.94/2016, dated 16/082/013. Whereas selectin was done on basis of department wise merit i.e. advertisement for recruitment was published on basis of department wise, written test was conducted on basis of department wise and interview selection was also done on basis of department wise production department, electrical department, mechanical department and E&I department etc."

In reply to this, petitioner was informed vide communication dated 12/10/2022 in the following terms :

"In this organisation in this regard it is to inform you that as per available record in the Unit, no orders/letters/instructions/notifications received from SPMCIL Corporate Office regarding common seniority list. However, a common seniority list was prepared at the Unit level with the approval of then Unit Head."

11. It is submitted that thus preparation of separate seniority list and then granting preferential treatment to the Supervisors working in Plant and Machinery-5 over the petitioners who are admittedly senior to the persons who were recruited for PM-5 is the act of discrimination and is, thus, arbitrary and contrary to the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Rameshwar Dass (2009) 7 SCC 400.

12. Shri Anand Nayak, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3, in his turn, submits that earlier the Security Paper Mill, Hoshangabad was an entity under Government of India. Consequent to its corporatisation in the year 2005 it came to be known as Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Limited. Consequent to corporatisation, a tripartite agreement as contained in Annexure-AR/4 was executed on 15/09/2008 filed along with I.A. No.2034/2024. It is submitted that in terms of this tripartite agreement, separate seniority list was prepared for the Supervisors who were working on Plant and Machinery-05. It is also pointed out that as per Annexure-AR/5 in clause-3.2, it is provided that all promotions in the Non-Executive Cadre which include Machine Staff, Secretarial & Office Staff, Miscellaneous Category Staff and

Industrial Workers shall be the responsibility of the concerned Unit. It is pointed out that in terms of this clarification for promotion policy, Clause-14 of the Policy enclosed along with Annexure-AR/5 provides that in case of any concerned arising out of implementation of the provisions of this Promotion Policy, the Authority to interpret and direct shall vest with the Chairman and Managing Director whose decision shall be final. Thereafter Shri Nayak, learned counsel, preferring to Annexure-P/3 submits that in communication dated 05/01/2016 made by the Corporate Headquarters of the SPMCIL, it is mentioned as under :

"Promotion Policy on the lines of the agreement dated 21/03/2015 arrived at with the representative of the recognized Unions during 10th Bipartite Forum Meeting for diligent implementation by the Units. It is emphasized that the Units shall not draw any inference based on their interpretation of the provisions of this Promotion Policy and in case of any concern, a reference should be made to the Corporate Office for necessary clarification and guidance as Chairman and Managing Director has been authorised to interpret and effect changes as deemed fit for the purpose of smooth implementation of the Promotion Policy for Machine Staff and to do all such acts, deeds and things considered necessary in this regard."

13. Shri Nayak, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 places reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pathan Mohammed Suleman Rehmatkhan Vs. State of Gujarat and others (2014) 4 SCC

156. Relying this judgment, it is submitted that in the matter of Economic/Business/Commercial decisions of the State or its instrumentality, there has to be extent of freedom available in respect to the decision inasmuch

as it is open to the State and the authorities to take economic and management decisions depending upon the exigencies of a situation guided by appropriate financial policy notified in public interest. If every decision taken by the State is tested by a microscopic and a suspicious eye, administration will come to a standstill and the decision makers will gloss all their initiative and enthusiasm. In this backdrop, it is submitted that the decision of the authorities to prepare separate seniority list for the cadre of Supervisor at the Unit level for different plants namely Plant No.5 vis-a-vis other plants does not call for any interference of the High Court.

14. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, this Court requested Shri Anand Nayak, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 to show from either the promotion policy or the tripartite agreement as contained in the MOU dated 15/09/2008 (Annexure- AR/4) that any decision was taken to prepare a separate seniority list for the Supervisors or for the Machine Staff of a Unit namely Security Paper Mill or the basis of plant and machinery, he is unable to show it either from the Memorandum of Understanding or from the said Promotion Policy (Annexure- AR/5).

15. Thus, in this backdrop when examined, then when there is no decision of the authority nor there is any tripartite agreement with the recognized Union, then such act of the respondents in preparing separate gradation list of Supervisors for the purpose of promotion on the basis of plant and machinery cannot be given a seal of approval.

16. In fact, ratio of law laid down in the case of Pathan Mohammed Suleman Rehmatkhan (supra) is that in the matters of commercial importance, once a financial policy is notified in the public interest, then that

policy is not required to be adjudicated with a microscopic and suspicious eye. Some lee-way is to be given to the administration to execute the policy.

17. However, in the present case, there is no policy brought on record permitting the authority to prepare separate gradation list. Therefore, this judgment of Pathan Mohammed Suleman Rehmatkhan (supra) in absence of any policy being brought on record to show that authorities of the Security Paper Mill, Hoshangabad Unit are authorised to prepare separate seniority list on the basis of plant and machinery or its date of installation is not made out.

18. In fact, in this regard, decision cited by learned senior counsel for the petitioner in the case of Rameshwar Dass (supra) is of assistance to the Court wherein facts were that different category of persons were vying for promotion to the post of WPO and overlooking their seniority certain other persons were given preference and in that backdrop, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that employer should have considered every employee, including the respondents, irrespective of the aforesaid categories and according to the seniority and past record.

19. Reference is given in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Durga Charan Das, AIR 1966 SC 1547 wherein it is held that the promotion to a selection post depends upon several relevant factors, the number of vacancies in the posts is one factor; the number of persons eligible for the said promotion is another factor; and the seniority of the said competitors along with their past record and their merits, is yet another factor. It is also observed that "at a given time, if more than one person are eligible for promotion, seniority should be taken into account and should prevail

unless the eligible persons are not equal in merit". Thus, when this ratio of law laid down in the case of Brooke Bond India (P) Ltd. Vs. Workmen (1963) 1 LLJ 256 is taken into consideration, then there is no iota of doubt that without there being a policy decision at corporate level communicated to the Unit, there could not have been any tampering of the seniority to give a march to certain blue eyed persons over the petitioners in the matter of promotion etc.

20. Since no policy has been brought on record permitting such discrimination on the basis of installation of the plant and machinery in the same Unit, that would amount to causing an arbitrary discrimination amongst the same cadre of people namely Supervisors belonging to a particular field be it Production or Mechanical or Electrical or E&I. That cannot be allowed to be perpetuated by the respondents, therefore, the seniority list dated 24/08/2017 and promotion order dated 08/12/2018 are hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to prepare a common seniority list of Supervisor (Production) on trade wise basis working at Security Paper Mill, Hoshangabad and on the basis of common seniority list shall consider the cases of the eligible persons on the parameters which were fixed by the DPC when promotions were granted to certain private individuals within a period of 45 days.

21. In above terms, this writ petition is allowed and disposed of.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE ts