JUDGMENT
Manju Goel, J.
1. The petitioner joined the respondent organisation on 16.8.1971 as a Cleaner and thereafter rose to higher posts. On 10.9.1988 the respondent introduced a Scheme of Leave Without Pay. By this Scheme the employees were permitted to take leave without pay for two years. The leave entailed certain losses which are given in Clauses 4(i) and 4(j) of the Scheme, which are as under:
4(i) During the currency of the period of leave without pay under this Scheme, the employees shall be without pay, dearness allowance, other allowance, benefits, per requisites and performance linked incentive and shall lose all service benefits such as all types of earned leave, pension, gratuity, provident fund, increment, etc and also promotion opportunities/avenues as they may arise with reference to their seniority in the post from which they had proceeded on leave. They shall also lose seniority in the higher grade/grades with reference to their juniors who might get promoted to such grade/grades before they rejoin duties.
4(j) Employees availing of the facilities under the Scheme will be given the benefit of continuity of service for purpose of passage, gratuity and pension. However, the duration of leave without pay under this Scheme will not be reckoned to determine the duration of total service for benefits like passage, gratuity and pension.
2. The petitioner availed of leave under this Scheme from 1.3.1999 to 1.3.2001. While the petitioner was on leave on 7.9.2000, the following circular was brought out:
AIR-INDIA
From: Director-HRD September 7, 2000
Santa Cruz
To Mr.B.R.Gaikwad DHRD: 42:867
DGM-HRD
Time Bound Promotion
AIR-INDIA
From: Director-HRD September 7, 2000
Santa Cruz
To Mr.B.R.Gaikwad DHRD: 42:867
DGM-HRD
Time Bound Promotion
We are enclosing a copy of the letter No. DHRD:42:796 dated August 23, 2000 addressed to all Departments Heads:
2. The above letter has been perused by the Departmental Heads and the MD has instructed that if an employee has been on prolonged leave without pay the duration should automatically be deducted from the eligibility period for time bound promotion.
3. The undersigned would request you to take necessary action in the matter and the same should be implemented with immediate effect.
Sd/-
(N.S. Rajan)
Director
Human Resources Development
3. The petitioner was given time-bound promotions. On 24.10.2005 the petitioner was working as Manager-Service Engineer. The two promotions were given to him in the meantime. He was promoted to the post of Supervisory Service Engineer w.e.f. July 1, 2001 and was confirmed as Supervisory Service Engineer w.e.f. July 1, 2002. He became Manager-Service Engineer w.e.f October 1, 2002 and was confirmed as Manager-Service Engineer w.e.f. October 1, 2003. The impugned letter dated 24.10.2005 was issued to the petitioner. According to this letter, while recommending the petitioner for time-bound promotion to the post of Supervisory Service Engineer w.e.f. July 1, 2001 the period of leave without pay availed of by the petitioner had not been deducted for determining his eligibility to the promotion and, therefore, that promotion was inadvertent as the petitioner by then had not fulfillled the stipulated criterion for time-bound promotions as per policy in this regard formed in May 1996. Consequently, the subsequent promotions were also said to be the result of the mistake. The letter than says that the position has been reviewed and, therefore, the date of his promotion to Supervisory Engineer is changed from 1.7.2001 to 1.12.2002 and that he was not eligible for promotion to the post of Manager- Service Engineer w.e.f. 1.10.2002. The respondent conveyed that it was decided to place the petitioner in the substantive post of Supervisory Service Engineer w.e.f. 1.11.2005.
4. This order is challenged on the ground that it has been passed after a long delay by which time the petitioner has already been given two promotions and the petitioner had been drawing certain benefits by way of higher pay and allowances and, therefore, this order causes prejudice to the petitioner. Further it is alleged that the circular dated 7.9.2000 cannot be applied to the petitioner because the petitioner had already availed of the leave by the time the circular came. On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that the promotion opportunities which the petitioner would have lost as per Clause 4(i) quoted above were only those which arose with reference to his seniority whereas the promotion which has now been denied is a time-bound promotion. It is admitted by the parties now that there was no promotion which could be given on seniority. All the promotions in the respondent organisation are time-bound promotions. The reference to seniority here can be understood only as length of service. Therefore, even if the document of 7.9.2000 is overlooked, the original scheme will affect the petitioner’s chances of promotion. According to the original scheme, the petitioner will have to lose the length of service of two years. It cannot be denied that the promotions given without taking into account the loss of service is a mistake. The respondent management cannot be prevented from curing the mistake.
5. It is true that the petitioner has already worked in his promoted capacity for four years before the mistake has been discovered. The management has fairly not withdrawn the extra payment made to the petitioner by way of wages and allowances. Hence, in my opinion no prejudice has been caused by the impugned letter.
Petition is dismissed.