Mr. G.v.j. Rao Vs Coal India Limited and Ors.

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI

¶3

2024:CGHC:34318

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

W.P.(S) No. 5239 of 2014

¶7

Mr. G.V.J. Rao,S/o Late Shri G.H.B. Sastry, aged about 45 years, Presently posted and working as Senior Manger (Industrial Engineering), IE Dept. SECL, Central E & M Workshop, Korba – 495677, District Korba, Police Station Manikpur, Korba (C.G.)

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

Coal India Limited, through its Chairman of CIL/Addl. Secy. To Ministry of Coal, Govt. of India, Room No. 330, ‘A’ Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110 001

¶11

The Chairman-cum-Managing Director of SECL/The Director (Tech.) of CIL, Coal India Limited, 10, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkatta- 700 001 (WB)

¶12

Shri A.K. Singh, Director (Personnel), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur – 495006, District Bilaspur, P.S. Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶13

Shri N.N. Roy, General Manager (IE)/HOD, Department of Industrial Engineering, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur – 495 006, District Bilaspur, P.S. Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶14

Shri L.V. Raju, General Manager (EE), Department of Executive Establishment, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur – 495 006, District Bilaspur, P.S. Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶15

Shri Ajay Dhar, General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bhatgaon Area, Bhatgaon – 497 235, District Sarguja, P.S. Bhatgaon, Bhatgaon (C.G.)

¶16

Shri V.K. Jaitak, General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Central E & M Workshop, Korba- 495 677, District Korba, P.S. Manikpur, Korba (C.G.)

¶17

Shri V.S. Seth, General Manager (Operation), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bhatgaon Area, Bhatgaon – 497 235, District Sarguja, P.S. Bhatgaon, Bhatgaon (C.G.)

¶18

...Respondents

¶19

For Petitioner	:	Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondents No. 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6	:	Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate

¶20

2

¶21

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶22

04.09.2024

¶23

By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-

¶24

“ 10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased call for the entire record/documents from SECL relating to the Petitioner’s EER from the date of his appointment in SECL to till date along with Leave Record Register & Attendance register of Industrial Engg. Dept., SECL HQ., Bilaspur for Sept’ 2009 for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.

¶25

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quashed the Non—speaking order dated 23-25/8/14 issued by SECL in respect of EER Report of 2012-13.

¶26

10.3 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to review and upgrade the marks of EER by awarding Excellent Grade rating pertaining to the years 2012-13 & 2011-12 in a proper manner after appreciating the works done by the Petitioner.

¶27

10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to pay exemplary compensation to the Petitioner, because in spite of rendering sincere, dedicated & honest service and having Excellent service record from the date of his appointment in SECL, some of the higher authorities of SECL are acting against the Petitioner with mala fide intention and for the said act of the authorities, the Petitioner suffered physically, mentally and financially.

¶28

10.5 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts & circumstances of the case including the cost of the proceedings.”

¶29

Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that at the relevant time, in the year 2011-12, the petitioner was holding the post of Senior Manager E-6 Grade and he was posted as Senior Manager, SECL, Korba CWS. He would further submit that as per the Executive Evaluation Report (EER) of the years 2012-13, the petitioner was awarded 59 marks and his rating was found adequate. This report was given by the General Manager

¶30

3

¶31

(EE) to the petitioner on 27.06.2014. He would also submit that the report was sent to the Reviewing Authority who declined to review the EER of the petitioner and affirmed it. He contends that in the preceding years grading of the petitioner was excellent and due to malice and personal grudge, he was awarded 59 marks by the authority concerned. He would state that the petitioner made various representations before the respondent authorities, but till date, the same has not been considered and decided.

¶32

On the other hand, Mr. R.K. Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6, would submit that the petitioner was awarded 59 marks and the grade awarded to the petitioner is adequate as he was awarded more than 40 marks. He would further submit that the award of 59 marks is equivalent to adequate, therefore, the Reviewing Authority declined to review that grade. He would also submit that the petitioner has the remedy to prefer a representation before the respondent authorities for the upgradation of EER. He also contends that the petitioner is not entitled to further review as such remedy would be available in favour of the petitioner if the grade awarded to the petitioner would have been inadequate.

¶33

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on the record.

¶34

Prior to the year 2012, the petitioner was awarded excellent/good in EER, but in the year 2012 he was awarded 59 marks and according to the guidelines such remark was adequate. The petitioner had made a representation before respondent No. 2 on 28.07.2014, but till date, the same has not been considered and decided.

¶35

4

¶36

Taking into consideration the fact that the representation made by the petitioner is still pending, at this juncture, without making any observation on the merits of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2 to decide the pending representation of the petitioner dated 28.07.2014 strictly in accordance with law preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in an objective manner by speaking order.

¶37

With the aforesaid direction(s), this petition is disposed of .

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶40

vatti

Mr. G.v.j. Rao v. Coal India Limited and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. G.v.j. Rao v. Coal India Limited and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Savita Katle Vs Janpad Panchayat, Lormi

Khushboo Singh Thakur @ Manogya Singh Thakur Vs Pitambar Singh

Ritesh Kumar Sharma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

M/S Golchha Promoters Developers and Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kalyan Prasad Dwivedi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Janak Kumar Dhake Vs State Bank Of India And Ors.