Dismissed¶22

Ranjit Kumar v. Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. through Its C M D

Service law – promotion

Jharkhand HC12 Sept 2024WPC/4349/2019

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Notional promotion Clerical Grade-II w.e.f. 14.08.1992; BCCL Tetulmari Colliery Sijua area; three years' experience as Grade III clerk requirement; settlement between management and union; committee recommendation; L.P.A No. 523/2017 Division Bench direction; representation rejected 07.05.2019; writ dismissed; Jharkhand High Court; Ambuj Nath, J.; service and industrial dispute.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner did not actually gain three years' experience as Clerical Grade III, as his service in that grade was regularized only in the year 1992 itself. ¶21

Ranjit Kumar Vs Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. through Its C M D — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 4349 of 2019

¶2

-------

¶3

Ranjit Kumar, aged about 63 years, S/o Late Kamaldeb Lal, R/o Mohalla-Bhuli, P.O & P.S Bhuli, District Dhanbad.

¶4

…... …. Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, through its C.M.D, Koyla Bhawan, P.O, P.S & District Dhanbad.

¶7

General Manger, BCCL, Koyla Bhawan, P.O , P.S & District Dhanbad.

¶8

Project Officer, Tetulmari Colliery, Sijua area, BCCL, P.O , P.S & District Dhanbad.

¶9

.…. …. Respondent(s) --------

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

¶11

¶12

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate

¶13

12/ Dated 12.09.2024

¶14

The petitioner Ranjjit Kumar has filed this writ application for quashing of the order dated 07.05.2019 (Annexure-3) issued by the respondent No.3 Project Officer, Tetulmari Colliery, Sijua area, BCCL, Dhanbad, by which, his representation pursuant to the order dated 23.10.2018 passed in L.P.A No. 523/2017 has been rejected. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of appropriate direction upon the respondents to promote him in clerical Grade-II w.e.f 14.08.1992.

¶15

The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as Miner Loader on 10.04.1982. His service was regularized on the post of Electrical Helper in category I class IV post.

¶16

It is admitted case that after his service was regularized as Electrical Helper in category I class IV post, he was officially discharging his duty as a clerk in category Grade-III since 1986.

¶17

The petitioner was promoted as Category III clerk in the year, 1992. The petitioner, being not satisfied with his promotion as Category III clerk, raised an industrial dispute. The matter was referred to the Labour Court i.e C.G.I.T. No.2, Dhanbad, making similar prayer and the reference was answered against him. Being aggrieved, petitioner moved this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(L) No.4952/2012. The same was dismissed by the Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 23.08.2017. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court vide L.P.A No.523/2017. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.10.2018 directed the petitioner to make a representation to the

¶18

respondent No.3 Project Officer, Tetulmari Colliery, Sijua area, BCCL, Dhanbad for giving effect to the settlement between the management and the union. The committee has recommended for regularization of his service in Clerical Grade-II notionally w.e.f. 14.08.1992. The respondents considered the claim of the petitioner and also recommendation made by the Committee by the aforesaid settlement and rejected his claim on the ground that at least three years of experience as Grade III was required for promotion to the post of Clerk in Grade II.

¶19

It is the case of the respondents that the service of the petitioner was regularized in Clerical Grade III in the year, 1992. Though he was unofficially discharging his duty on this post, it cannot be said that the petitioner has officially gained experience of three years on clerical Grade III post.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that despite of specific direction given by the Division Bench of this Court passed in L.P.A No. 523/2017, the claim of the petitioner was not given effect to the settlement.

¶21

It is an admitted case that his service was regularized in Clerical Grade III post in the year, 1992, so, it cannot be said that the petitioner had actually gained experience of three years’ in the company as Clerical Grade III post as his service was regularized in the year, 1992 itself. So, the management cannot be faulted for not promoting the petitioner notionally w.e.f. 14.08.1992, as per the terms of settlement between the management and the union.

¶22

Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed.

¶23

Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

¶24

(Ambuj Nath, J.)

¶25

B.S/-

Ranjit Kumar v. Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. through Its C M D

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjit Kumar v. Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. through Its C M D

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash Routh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Panchami Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bala Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Madhusudan Soren And Anr. Vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary Ministry Of Labour Employment And Training Deptt And Ors.

Vijay Bahadur Singh Vs National Institute of Foundry and Forge Technology

Prem Mohan Prasad Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand