Disposed

Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. Officers' Association v. Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Jul 2014WP/1436/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of the writ petition challenging appointments under the Shipping Corporation of India Recruitment Policy. The court held the policy had expired and clarified the scope of manager's discretion regarding promotions and absorption.

What did the court decide?

The petition is disposed of subject to clarifications on recruitment policy scope. Notice of Motion is also disposed of.

Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. Officers'… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

wp1436-13

ybg

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1436 OF 2013

¶6

Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. Officers' Association, Mumbai .. Petitioners - Versus - Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors... .. Respondents

¶7

Mr.Sanjay Singhavi with Rajmohan Amonkar for petitioners Mr.Kevic Setalwad, Senior Advocate with Mr.Anupam Surve, Ms.Kavita Sachin i/b. M.V.Kini & Co. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Mr.G.Hariharan with Dhanesh Shah i/b. A.A.Ansari for respondent No.3 UOI.

¶8

CORAM : S.J.VAZIFDAR & A.K.MENON, JJ. DATE : 8^th July 2014.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

1] Prayer (a) does not survive as respondent No.2 whose appointment is challenged has resigned.

¶11

2] By prayer clause (b) the petitioner seeks an order directing the respondent No.1 to make appointment to the post of Senior Vice President and to all posts except those in JO Cadre and in technical grade of Masters and Chief Engineers in Manager's Cadre from the Fleet Personnel only by way of promotion.

¶12

3] Clause 2(d) and (e) of the Recruitment Policy read thus:-

¶13

¶14

wp1436-13

¶15

“2. Appointments:-

¶16

(a) …. (b) …. © ….

¶17

(d) The Selection of officers for appointments at a higher level than Assistant Manager will be made only when there is absolute need and at the discretion of the management.

¶18

(e) Absorption of Fleet Personnel to the shore cadre is made at the discretion of the Management based on the requirements ashore. A circular is issued inviting applications from fleet officers for absorption ashore. The response is scrutinised along with the confidential reports of the eligible applicants by a committee constituted by the management. The final selection is then made for absorption.”

¶19

4] The post of Junior Officer is now referred to as Assistant Manager. Among shore employees, Assistant Manager is the junior most post. They are naturally, therefore, appointed by direct recruitment. The petitioners contend that all posts above that of Assistant Manager/ Junior Officer can be filled in only by promotion and not by direct recruitment.

¶20

5] Clause 2(d) does not contain any such restriction. This ambit is limited by the words “only when there is absolute need”. It is neither desirable nor possible to enumerate all the circumstances which would fall within the ambit of this phrase. Further, the absolute need would

¶21

¶22

wp1436-13

¶23

depend upon the contingency existing at a given point of time. A contingency that exists at one point of time may not exist at another point of time. It would, therefore, be necessary for the petitioner and it is always open for the petitioner to challenge any appointment as not being absolute necessary. In that event, the respondent No.1 would have to justify the absolute necessity only in respect of that appointment.

¶24

6] Clause 2(e) indeed refers to the absorption of fleet personnel to the shore cadre meaning thereby the fleet personnel under the employment of respondent No.1 and not to fleet personnel with other shipping companies.

¶25

7] However, it is possible that such fleet personnel i.e. other than those employed by respondent No.1 could also be considered under clause 2(d). Their suitability for the post is another matter altogether which again must depend upon each individual case.

¶26

8] The recruitment policy introduced by the respondent No.1 in 2005 does not survive as it was only for a period of ten years from November 1997 to December 2006.

¶27

9] The petition is accordingly disposed of, subject to the above clarifications. Notice of Motion also does not survive in view of disposal of the petition and the same is disposed of accordingly.

¶28

(A.K.MENON, J)

¶29

( S.J.VAZIFDAR, J.)

Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. Officers' Association v. Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. Officers' Association v. Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Susheela U. Nambiar Vs Mr. Pradipchaudhari, Chairman, SBI

Union of India Vs Ms. Sushama v. Dabak and Ors.

Indira Baruah Vs the Board of Directors of State Bank of India and Ors.

Kusumben Kantilal and Anr. Vs Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.

M/S. Citadel Architectural Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Ors. Vs Dcb Bank Limited and Anr.

Shapoor M.Mehta Vs Allahabad Bank and 2 Ors.