IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P (C ) No. 4942 of 2008
Shiva Mohan Jha .... Petitioner
Versus
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd and others ... Respondents
Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.
For the petitioner (s) : Mr.M/s G.M Mishra & Umesh Mishra
For the respondents : Mr. Mokhatar Khan.
26.03. 2009. Heard the counsel for the parties.
Petitioner in this application has prayed for issuance of
a direction to the respondents to consider his case for grant of time bound
promotion in terms of the scheme and the rules of the BSNL by
considering the fact that the petitioner had completed 40 years' of service
before his superannuation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would explain by
reference to the Office Memorandum No. 400-61/2004.Pers.1/308 dated
18.1.2007
that the office memorandum lays down Rules regarding grant
of time bound promotion/post based promotional policy for group B
officers of the BSNL. Under the policy, the eligibility criteria has been
elaborately stated in clause 3 which indicates that the first upgradation of
the IDA Scale of the Executives will be due for consideration on
completion of 4 years of service in the current IDA scale subject to the
condition that the executive’s basic pay in the current IDA scale has
crossed/touched the lowest of the higher IDA scale for which his/her
upgradation is to be considered or he/she has completed six years of
service in the current IDA scale, whichever is earlier. Similarly, for the
subsequent upgradtion to the next higher IDA scale, eligibility was fixed
as 5 years’ service in the current ID scale.
The petitioner has completed requisite number of years
of service in the lower scale and therefore the respondent authorities were
under obligation under the policy and the Rules to refer the petitioner’s
case along with other eligible officers to the screening committee .
The grievance of the petitioner is that in the light of the
policy decision, which directed for consideration of the case of eligible
officers, petitioner’s case which ought to have been taken up on 1.10.2004,
1.10.2005 and 1.10.2006 should have been taken up and completed before
31.3.2007.
Learned counsel adds that since the criteria as laid dwn
in the aforesaid policy does not take into consideration any other criteria
for grant of time bound promotion, the respondents could not have
withheld the petitioner’s case by referring to the petitioner’s ACR which is
irrelevant in the context of grant of upgradation on ID scale.
Learned counsel adds further that by arbitrarily linking
the petitioner’s claim for 1st upgration with his ACR of 2001, the
respondents have illegally deprived the petitioner of the benefits of 1st
upgradation .
Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
respondents.Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the case
was referred to DPC and since no meeting of the DPC could be held,
therefore the petitioner’s case could not be considered.
Learned counsel for the petitioner on the contrary, would
contradict by stating that reference of the petitioner’s case to the DPC was
not relevant for his upgradation and therefore the respondents cannot
take the plea of DPC for denial of benefit of the upgradation to the
petitioner.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the
respondents are directed to implement the policy as laid down in the
aforesaid office memorandum of the respondent BSNL dated 18.1.2007 and
to consider the petitioner’s case in respect of his claim for grant of first
upgradation in accordance with the criteria laid down in the aforesaid
memorandum and to record their decision on the petitioner’s claim by
recording a reasoned and speaking order and shall communicate the same
effectively to the petitioner within two months from the date of this order.
With the above observation, this application is disposed
of.
Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the
respondents.
Ambastha/ (D.G.R. Patnaik,J)