Dismissed

Bhoj Ram Teli v. South Eastern Coalfileds Ltd. and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC24 Jan 2024WPS/1865/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Advocate Rajani Dubey dismissed this promotion petition filed by a retired employee. The court held that the petitioner failed to challenge the charge sheet and non-consideration for promotion during his active service, deeming the petition devoid of merit and inadmissible after retirement. Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's prayer for consideration for promotion and monetary benefits dismissed.

Bhoj Ram Teli Vs South Eastern… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 1865 of 2014

¶5

Order reserved on 30/10/2023

¶6

Order passed on 25/01/2024

¶7

- Bhoj Ram Teli S/o Shri Jhadu Ram Teli, Aged About 60 Years Retired Senior Clerk, From O/o The Deputy General Manager Personnel, S.E.C.L. Kusmunda Project, Kusmunda, Distt. Korba C.G.R/o Village - Dongia, P.O. Portha, P.S. And Tehsil Sakti, Distt. Janjgir - Champa (C.G.)

¶8

---- Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

1 - South Eastern Coalfileds Ltd, (A Subsidiary of Coal India Limited) Through Its Chief Managing Director, Seepath Road, P.B. Bo. 60, Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶11

2 - The General Manager Mining S.E.C.L. Kusmunda Project, Kusmunda, Distt. Korba (C.G.)

¶12

3 - The Deputy General Manager Personnel S.E.C.L. Kusmunda Area, Project, Kusmunda, Distt. Korba (C.G.)

¶13

4 - Shri P.V. Satyanarayana, The Deputy Gneneral Manager (Personnel), S.E.C.L. Kusmunda Project, Kusmunda, Distt. Korba (C.G.)

¶14

5 - Shri Arun Kumar Tyagi, Mining Manager S.E.C.L. Kusmunda Project, Kusmunda, Distt. Korba (C.G.)

¶15

---- Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr. R. K. Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate.

¶17

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

¶18

C.A.V. ORDER

¶19

The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of appropriate writ/mandamus and direction to respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of

¶20

¶21

Office Superintendent Grade – A w.e.f. 28.03.2013 and grant him the consequential benefits.

¶22

Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Clerk Grade – III on 14.02.1987 and further he was promoted to the next higher post of Clerk Grade – II, Clerk Grade – I and Senior Clerk, Special Grade on 15.09.1988, 12.06.1993 and 06.08.2001 respectively. Thus, the petitioner was working on the post of Senior Clerk since 06.08.2001 up to the retirement on 28.02.2014 (Annexure-P/1) . The respondent authorities published a Seniority List of Sr. Clerk, Special Grade (Annexure-P/2) wherein the name of the petitioner has been placed at Sl. No. 2.

¶23

3 . That, the respondents had convened a DPC for promotion on the post of Office Superintendent Grade – A, but in the instant D.P.C. the name of the petitioner has not been considered for promotion on the ground that the petitioner has been issued a charge sheet on 09.03.2008. The name of the juniors to the petitioner were considered for promotion and they have been promoted vide order dated 28.03.2013 (Annexure- P/3) , being aggrieved with the promotion order, the petitioner has preferred a representation on 30.03.2013 (Annexure- P/4) requesting to consider the name of the petitioner for promotion as there is no disciplinary proceeding pending against him. Thereafter, the petitioner was informed vide memo dated

¶24

¶25

07.05.2013 that the petitioner was issued charge sheet on 09.03.2008, therefore, Shri B. K. Gautam is appointed as enquiry officer and on the same day, the petitioner was sent a letter dated 07.05.2013 informing that a charge sheet had been served upon the petitioner on 09.03.2008, therefore, for enquiry upon the aforesaid charge sheet the hearing is fixed on 08.05.2013 (Annexure- P/5 & P/6). The petitioner had preferred a letter dated 08.05.2013 and addressed to the Enquiry Officer stating all the facts that he was never served any charge sheet (Annexure– P/7) . Surprisingly, no information with regard to the enquiry proceeding was given to the petitioner and without completing the enquiry proceeding, the petitioner was retired, thus, it shows that the contention of pending charge sheet is fake and false action of the respondent authorities and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get monetary benefits of promotion. Deliberately the name of the petitioner has not been considered which shows the malice on the part of respondents No. 4 & 5.

¶26

4 . The petitioner has retired from service w.e.f. 28.02.2014 and after his retirement from service all the retiral dues have been paid to the petitioner. However, if any Departmental Enquiry was pending, then, the retiral dues would not have been settled. The petitioner is quite confident that he was not served with any charge sheet and only with ulterior motives, the name of the petitioner was not considered for promotion to the post

¶27

¶28

of Office Superintendent Grade- A in arbitrary and contrary manner, therefore, the petitioner has preferred instant writ petition for considering his name for promotion on the post of Office Superintendent Grade-A w.e.f. 28.03.2013 and seeking a direction to allow the monetary benefits of promotion with arrears etc. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

¶29

“a. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or suitable direction for considering the name of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Office Superintendent Grade-A w.e.f. 28.03.2013 and further seeking a direction to allow the consequential benefits of services etc.

¶30

b. May kindly be pleased to allow the monetary benefits of promotion to the petitioner and further allowed to suitable compensation to the petitioner with the respondents.

¶31

c. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow any other relief as the Hon’ble Court may be deemed fit and proper.

¶32

d. Cost of petition may kindly be allowed.”

¶33

5 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the

¶34

¶35

respondent authorities is arbitrary and contrary to the service rules. The petitioner is senior most Sr. Clerk Special Grade and his name is placed at serial No. 2, but his name has not been considered for promotion on the ground that the charge sheet is pending against him. In fact, neither the petitioner has been served any charge sheet nor it is pending. Suppose the disciplinary enquiry is pending since 2008, even the name of the petitioner shall be considered for promotion adopting the process of sealed cover envelope subject to final outcome of the disciplinary proceedings. But this procedure has also not been adopted by the authority in arbitrary manner. The petitioner has never been communicated any letter with regard to the charge sheet and for the first time vide letter dated 07.05.2013 he disclosed that on 09.03.2008 a charge sheet has been served upon the petitioner. The respondents No. 4 & 5 are acting against the petitioner with ulterior motives and only to harass him, they have not considered his name for promotion on the post of Office Superintendent Grade-A. The petitioner is feeling more surprised that the disciplinary proceeding is pending since 2008 without having any of his knowledge. The act of the respondent authorities is arbitrary and mala fide . The petitioner’s name has not been considered for promotion on the fake and false ground, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get consideration for promotion on the post of Office Superintendent Grade-A as he has been retired from his service, therefore, he is claiming for consequential,

¶36

¶37

monetary benefits w.e.f. 28.03.2013 where his juniors have been promoted.

¶38

6 . Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner stood retired from his service on 04.02.2014 and has not challenged the charge sheet dated 09.03.2008 during service period, therefore, when he is not in service he cannot file this petition, because he cannot get the benefit of promotion over respondents No. 4 & 5. The petitioner has admitted that on 28.03.2013 he was not considered for promotion due to pendency of action in charge sheet dated 09.03.2008, therefore, it was obligatory on the petitioner to file the petition in between 28.03.2013 to 28.02.2014 and since during service he has not filed this petition, therefore no petition can be entertained for enforcement of grant of promotion after retirement and likewise, when pendency of charge sheet dated 09.03.2008 was ever challenged before the date of superannuation of the petitioner, therefore it will be also presumed that he has left and abandoned the cause of action that arose for challenging the same. The promotion is always given on vacant post as and when the concerned employee fulfills the requirement of promotion. As such, the promotion has been rightly denied to the petitioner due to pendency of the enquiry against him which was never challenged during the service period. The charge sheet and enquiry papers are

¶39

¶40

(Annexure-R/1) wherein charges have been found to be proved in enquiry. The petitioner further admitted this fact that he stood retired w.e.f. 28.02.2014 and after that he filed this writ petition. The pendency of enquiry from 09.03.2008 till 28.03.2014 was not challenged by the petitioner and this petition is filed by the petitioner on 09.04.2014. Therefore, this petition is not maintainable, without any merit and same is hereby liable to be dismissed.

¶41

7 . This is an admitted petition. In this case the petitioner was working in the respondent department and he stood retired on 28.02.2014. It is also not disputed that in departmental promotion respondents No. 4 & 5 were juniors to the petitioner and they were promoted on 28.02.2013.

¶42

8 . The respondents filed an enquiry report and copy of charge sheet and notice. It is quite clear from Annexure-R/1 that the petitioner was suspended till further order. As per petitioner, the charge sheet was not supplied to him, therefore, he filed Annexure-P/4 which is representation of the petitioner for promotion and the petitioner later admitted this fact that in the year 2008 he was charge sheeted and an enquriy was conducted against him, but before retirement the petitioner never challenged the action of respondent and it is also not disputed that the petitioner stood retired on 28.02.2014 and after two months of his retirement he filed this petition on 09.04.2014. The petitioner has not explained this fact that why

¶43

¶44

he has not challenged the order dated 28.03.2013 during his service tenure. It is clear from the letter dated 30.03.2013 (Annexure-P/4) that the petitioner requested for promotion on this ground that in the coming year 2014 he is going to retire and this will be his last promotion. The petitioner has not challenged the charge sheet or any action of the respondent authorities before his retirement.

¶45

9 . The petitioner objected that till date no final order was passed. The respondent also did not file any punishment order of the petitioner, but it is clear that during his service period the petitioner did not challenge this enquiry or promotion order of respondents No. 4 & 5. As such, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, this petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

(Rajani Dubey)

JUDGE

Uttej

Bhoj Ram Teli v. South Eastern Coalfileds Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhoj Ram Teli v. South Eastern Coalfileds Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Bal Kumari Rajvade Vs South Eastern Coalfiled Ltd. and Ors.

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Chintamani Yadav

Vishal @ Rahul Rajwade Vs South Eastern Coalfields

Amit Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Satyendra Mishra Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Kundan Jha Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Limited