JUDGMENT
Tapen Sen, J.
1. Heard Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.M. Bannerjea, assisted by Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner states that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has already superannuated and therefore, in the event of success the petitioner would be entitled to only monetary benefit.
3. The writ petitioner in the instant case has prayed for quashing of Annexure 2 which is a letter dated 8/11.12.1995 issued by the C.M.D., CMPDIL (respondent No. 4) whereby and whereunder a formal communication has been made informing the petitioner that his representation has been rejected. Though not having said so in so many words which the C.M.D. should have done, he merely quotes and unquotes the minutes of a decision taken on the representation of the petitioner. However, according to Mr. P.K. Prasad, the representation, was, in fact rejected as per the above mentioned communication.
4. According to the petitioner, his placement in the seniority list was at Sl. No. 65. A DPC was held in December, 1993 wherein one of the criterion for purposes of consideration of a case for promotion was the overall assessment during the last live preceding years i.e. 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93. Mr. P.K. Prasad has further submitted that the petitioner’s overall performance during the last five relevant years was excellent but just three months before the holding of the D.P.C., the Reviewing Authority down graded the rating to “good”. According to him, such a down gradation/adverse entry was not even communicate to the petitioner. At paragraph 6, 7 and 9 of the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated as follows :
“6. With reference to the statement made in paragraph 4 of the said writ application I say that the statement made therein is admitted, except the contention of petitioner towards the doing well in interview, conducted in December ’93 by selection-cum-DPC, it is a matter of record.
7. With reference to the statement made in paragraph 5 of the said writ application I say that the performance appraisal report votings or reducing by reviewing authority is a matter of record. However, the contention of the petitioner for ignoring CR ratings by selection-cum-DPC is hereby denied.
9. With reference to the statement made in paragraph 9 of the said writ application I say that the promotion orders were released in accordance to the recommendation extended by the selection-cum-DPC and the panel was formulated in order of merit as per the methodology/criteria laid down in the relevant provision for promotion from M-2 to M-3 grade.”
5. At paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit, the respondents have further stated that the allegation of reducing the C.R. Rating is denied and is a subject matter of record.
6. In the face of such overwhelming disputed question of fact, this Court is unable to give any positive relief in favour of the petitioner at this stage. This Court under Article 226 considering the aforementioned facts at the threshold, cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to promote the petitioner considering the statements made in the counter affidavit. However, if what Mr. Prasad has submitted is actually and factually found to be correct i.e. that the downgrading and/or adverse entry was never communicated, then the denial of promotion on that ground appears to be not proper and in that event the respondents should reconsider the case of the petitioner and pass an order in accordance with law.
7. Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed off with consent of the parties and the petitioner is given liberty to file a representation before the respondent No. 3 [Director (Personnel & Industrial Relation), Coal India Limited, Coal Bhawan, Calcutta]. Such a representation is to be filed within a period of four weeks from today. This Court is informed that the respondent No. 3 is presently described as Director Personnel, Coal India Limited. Upon receipt of the representation indicated above, the authority dealing with the same shall pass necessary orders in accordance with law without in any manner being prejudiced by any observations made herein. The petitioner having superannuated on 30.4.2001 as has been informed by Mr. P.K. Prasad, this Court expects the authority indicated above to dispose off the matter with all expedition at his disposal but definitely not beyond a period of six months from the date of receipt of such representation.
This writ petition stands disposed off. No order as to costs.