ORDER
Vikramaditya Prasad, J.
1. Heard both sides.
2. The contention of the petitioner in this writ is that the management has not granted him promotion to Grade C, though
the petitioner has been working in the department.
3. The career graph of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a driver in category V on 23.3.1982 then he was upgraded to grade VI on 1.7.1992, though he became eligible for that post after completion of 8 years of experience. The further case of the petitioner is that subsequently, in the year 1992 vide Annexure-8, the post of the petitioner was upgraded to category-VI. Therefore, according to the petitioner if the post was upgraded to category VI with effect from 1.7.1992 then as per the promotion policy as contained in Annexure-A, he should have been promoted to Grade C after completion of 7 years of experience with effect from 1.7.1992.
4. The sum and substance of the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the petitioner could not be granted that promotion earlier because of non-availability of that post as there is no vacancy on that post.
5. In the context of arguments raised by the contesting parties, it is relevant to peruse the promotion policy, which is implemented with effect from 1.1.1997. Clause 3(c) of the policy reads as follows : “Promotional zone for filling the vacancy up to Category IV will be colliery/unit and thereafter up to Techni-cal-C will be area seniority and for Technical B & A on the company seniority unless otherwise specifically provided in the Scheme itself.” Then Clause 5(a) reads as follows :
“Promotion will be given subject to the vacancies and strictly as on the line of the promotion based on the recommendation of the Department promotion Committee.”
(Emphasis (Subject to vacancy)
6. When the up gradation was made, it was categorically mentioned in that order that the petitioner will work on the existing post and not on the post to which he was upgraded, but the monetary benefit will be given. Even according to the petitioner It was not the substantive promotion rather it was upgradation to provide some
monetary benefit to the petitioner. So even for the sake of argument it is said that the upgradation amounted to promotion, then the question will arise whether if the petitioner was allowed to work on the post on which he was working earlier did he get experience of that higher post? The answer will be that he did not discharge the functions of that higher post, he had no experience of the functions attached to that upgraded post nothing has been shown by the petitioner that on the relevant date he acquired the experience of 7 years as the driver cum mechanic after his having been promoted to that post.
7. The respondents appeared and filed counter affidavit that as the petitioner was stagnating in category-V, his post was upgraded on completion of 10 years of service in the same grade/category with effect from 1.7.1992 vide office order No. BBC/ 1354/93 dated 2/5.8.1993. Because there was no vacancy at that relevant time in the area in which the petitioner is working.
8. In view of the policy of promotion as the promotion is subject to vacancy unless the vacancy occurs no promotion can be given to the petitioner despite of experience on the post of driver-cum-mechanic.
9. It is directed that as soon as any vacancy occurs in the T.N.S.C. in the area concerned, the petitioner will be considered for promotion to that post.
10. With this direction the writ is dis
posed of.