Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/13/1998 5/ 5 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 13 of 1998
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1859 of 1989
With
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 14 of 1998
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6847 of 1991
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 67 of 1998
In
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 13 of 1998
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 69 of 1998
In
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 14 of 1998
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
=================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=================================================
CHAIRMAN,
ONGC & 2 - Appellants
Versus
J.B.
CHAUHAN & 3 - Respondents
=================================================
Appearance :
MR. KUNAN
NAIK for M/S TRIVEDI & GUPTA for
Appellants: 1 - 3.
MR IS SUPEHIA for Respondents : 1 -
4.
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date
: 12/07/2010
COMMON
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD)
The
present appeals are preferred by the appellants / original
respondents against the common order dated 3/10/1997 passed by
learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 1859 of 1989,
and 6847 of 1991 respectively. The petitioners before the learned
Single Judge were Junior Engineers working with Western Region of
ONGC. One Mr. R.N. Patel was transferred from Bombay region to
western region. According to the policy of the appellants said Mr.
Patel was to rank junior to all those who were already working in
the western region. This juniority was in relation to general
seniority list.
Learned
counsel has submitted that a policy came to be made by the
appellants ONGC that those who have completed one year term in the
scale of Rs.725-1480 as on 31/12/1985 was required to be considered
for promotion in the pay scale of Rs.1030-2000 and in that list what
happened was present respondents/petitioners were not qualified in
the one year policy. However one Mr. R.N. Patel having worked in
the said pay scale after one year completion, but in two different
regions, has been considered for promotion by ONGC. Learned Single
Judge considered the case of the petitioners with the case of said
Mr. Patel and opined that though Mr. Patel has not worked in western
region for one year and according to the policy of one year working
in pay scale of Rs.725-1480 in a region, and all those who are
ranked seniority to said Mr. Patel were required to be considered
for promotion. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able
to refute this position that all the persons working in pay scale of
Rs.725-1480 has to complete one year in the same pay scale. Though
in the present case said Mr. Patel ranks below the seniority of the
petitioners in western region, they were denied the benefit of
promotion only on the ground that Shri Patel was appointed earlier
in point of time. Therefore Learned Single Judge has been pleased to
issue direction that the petitioners be considered to be eligible
for consideration under the one year policy and give them pay scale
of Rs.1030-2000.
We
have perused the order passed by learned Single Judge and relevant
documents / papers produced on record. Heard learned counsel for the
parties. The service of Mr. Patel as Junior Engineer in the pay
scale of Rs. 725-1480 was for one year but in two different regions,
and not in western region. Therefore giving benefit to Mr. Patel for
the work rendered in another region would not entitle Mr. Patel to
get the advantage of one year policy. This is only a fallacious
proposition that the appellants have created just to give promotion
to Mr. Patel. In that view of the matter learned Single Judge has
ordered that the petitioners are eligible to get promotion who are
seniors to Mr. Patel in the western region.
In
support of contention of the appellants learned counsel has cited a
decision of Hon’ble Supreme court reported in (2010) 4 SCC 301, in
case of H.S. VANKANI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
However we do not see any rational in one year policy announced by
the appellants. This policy sounds us to be discriminatory qua those
petitioners because they were working in the western region alone
have not been considered and in case of Mr. Patel, though he worked
in two different regions, has considered for the benefit of one year
policy. That a particularly employee gets the advantage of one year
serving in same line but worked in two different regions has been
benefited of the policy created by the appellants, but the persons
worked in the same region is not given advantage of that policy.
It
may be mentioned here that learned counsel has argued much in
relation to the policy of one year and we notice from the order of
learned Single Judge that engineers in mechanical branch of the
appellants though have not completed one year service as on
1/1/1986 were given the benefit of one year policy, as the engineers
who are juniors as they have come from other regions after having
worked for more than one year service have been given the benefit.
In the case of the petitioners the service conditions are not
distinguishable with the case of engineers of mechanical branch of
the appellants. Learned Single Judge has elaborately discussed this
point in its order. We find that appellants have been creating
policies for treating different employees at different levels. In
that view of the matter we do not see any interference is called
for in the orders passed by learned Single Judge.
Learned
counsel has further submitted that it would not be fair for this
Court to unsettle the seniority list which have come to be settled.
We may say that the appellants have flouted the order of learned
Single Judge for all these years and having flouted the orders of
this Court, it does not lie in the mouth of the counsel for the
appellants to say that by the orders of this Court the character of
seniority has been changed. Therefore this argument has also no
base. For the reasons recorded herein above, we find no merits in
the appeals. No interference is called for in the orders passed by
learned Single Judge. The appeals fail and are dismissed.
In
view of the orders passed in appeals, civil applications will not
survive and are accordingly rejected.
[
BHAGWATI PRASAD, J ]
[
S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J ]
/vgn
Top