Allowed

T.G.Thulasidas v. Travancore Cochin Chemicals Ltd. and Anr.

Kerala HC14 Nov 2016WP(C)/12754/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought retrospective promotion as General Manager (Technical) and additional gratuity. Court found a denial of opportunity to consider the promotion claim and directed grant of promotion with effect from 16.8.2010, with statutory authorities to adjudicate gratuity.

What did the court decide?

Promotion as General Manager (Technical) granted notionally with effect from 16.8.2010, with consequential pensionary benefits; gratuity claim to be adjudicated by statutory authority under Payment of

T.G.Thulasidas Vs Travancore Cochin Chemicals… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/23RD KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 12754 of 2011 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

T.G.THULASIDAS, DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (CORPORATE PLANNING)(RETD.), TRAVANCORE COCHIN CHEMICALS LIMITED, UDYOGAMANDAL, COCHIN-682 501.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. TRAVANCORE COCHIN CHEMICALS LIMITED, UDYOGAMANDAL, COCHIN-682 501, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶11

2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR

¶13

SMT.THUSHARA JAMES SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.RAJI T.BHASKER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

msv/

¶16

WP(C).No. 12754 of 2011 (T)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.PM/5358 DTD.28.9.1978 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶20

P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.HR/M-150/200 DTD.25.8.2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶21

P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.MD/M-15/05 DTD.21.4.09 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶22

P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.MD/M-15/06 DTD.21.4.1009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶23

P5 TRUE COPY OF SERVICE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD.6.9.2010.

¶24

P6 TRUE COPY OF SUBMISSION MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 14.2.2011.

¶25

P7 TRUE COPY OF LAST SLIP OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY, 2011.

¶26

P8 TRUE COPY OF EXTRACT OF THE DECISION TAKEN ON 21.12.2010 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶27

P9 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.SY & IA DTD.9.2.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶29

EXT.R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE MANAGERIAL PROMOTION RULES.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

msv/

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶34

----------------------------------------------W.P(C).No. 12754 of 2011

¶35

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 14^th November, 2016

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

The petitioner entered service in the Travancore Cochin Chemicals Limited as Executive Trainee (Mechanical Engineering) on 4.10.1978. His services were regularised on 4.4.1980. He was thereafter promoted in the organisation and was ultimately promoted as the Deputy General Manager on 16.8.2008. By Exhibit P2 order dated 25.8.2009, his promotion as Deputy General Manager was confirmed with effect from 16.8.2009. By Exhibit P3 order dated 21.4.2009, he was given charge of General Manager (Technical). By Exhibit P4 order, he was designated as Factory Manager, which is a statutory designation. He retired from service on 20.2.2011. By Exhibit P6 dated 14.2.2011, he had requested for grant of promotion as General Manager (Technical) with effect from the date of Exhibit P3. This request did not receive the attention of the respondents. The petitioner also claimed that he was entitled to be paid gratuity of Rs.12,55,329/- and that he was paid only an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. Therefore, this writ petition is filed with the prayers for granting him retrospective promotion as General Manager (Technical) and for grant of consequential benefits as also for release of the amount of gratuity which he is entitled to less the amount actually paid.

¶38

¶39

WP(C).12754/11

¶40

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶41

With regard to the claim for grant of enhanced gratuity, it is submitted that the petitioner comes under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act and therefore any claim for enhanced gratuity has to be adjudicated by him in accordance with the provisions of that Act. This is not seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the above circumstances, the petitioner has to approach the statutory authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act for adjudication of his claim with respect to gratuity.

¶42

With regard to the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of General Manager (Technical) with effect from the date of Exhibit P3, when he was put in full additional charge, the contention raised in the counter affidavit filed by the 1^st respondent is to the effect that Exhibit R1(a) Managerial Promotion Rules provided for a minimum length of service of two years in the feeder category for promotion as General Manager. It is stated that since the petitioner had been promoted as Deputy General Manager (Corporate Planning) only on 16.8.2008, he would be eligible for consideration to the higher post of General Manager only on 16.8.2010. Relying on Exhibit R1(a)

¶43

¶44

WP(C).12754/11

¶45

promotion policy, it is further contended that internal promotion to the post of General Manager is to be made on the basis of an interview conducted by the Board of Directors from eligible candidates in the minimum lower level. The basic criteria for eligibility is competence, suitability and merit. It is stated that the petitioner herein did not satisfy the eligibility criterion for consideration, since his performance assessment in the year 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 was not satisfactory. It is therefore contended that for the above reason, the process of interview by the Board of Directors could not be initiated in his case. It is further contended that the full additional charge of General Manager (Technical) is given to the petitioner by Exhibit P3 or his designation as Factory Manager cannot have the effect of conferring eligibility for consideration for promotion as General Manager (Technical).

¶46

I have considered the rival contentions advanced.

¶47

Exhibit R1(a), which is relied upon by the respondents provides for promotion on the basis of competence and suitability. Seniority is being considered in case of individuals of equal merit. The minimum length of service in the feeder category for consideration for promotion as General Manager is shown as two years. However, it is stated that

¶48

¶49

WP(C).12754/11

¶50

the above period may be relaxed in the case of competent officers with requisite qualification and experience in that level to appear for the interview. Clause 3 of Exhibit R1(a) provides as follows:

¶51

“ 3. An Officer shall be eligible for consideration for promotion to a higher post only if his performance assessment in the preceding 3 years is rated “B” (Good) and above.”

¶52

Though it is submitted in the statement that the petitioner did

¶53

not meet the required criterion, no document is produced to substantiate this claim. More importantly, I notice that no reply has been given to the petitioner pointing out any reason for the non consideration of his claim for promotion as General Manager (Technical) with effect from 21.4.2009. Exhibit P3 would show that the petitioner was put in charge of the duties of General Manager (Technical) with immediate effect. He was substantially holding the post of Deputy General Manager. As per Exhibit P4, he was designated as Factory Manager. The petitioner held charge of the post of General Manager (Technical) till his retirement from service on 20.2.2011. No disciplinary proceedings of any nature had been taken against him. From the documents produced before me, it is clear that no short fall in his performance assessment during 2008-2009 or 2009-2010 had even been brought to the notice of the petitioner. On the contrary, he was

¶54

¶55

WP(C).12754/11

¶56

allowed to retire from service while holding charge of the post of General Manager (Technical).

¶57

In the above view of the matter, I am unable to accept the contention advanced by the respondents that the petitioner's claim for promotion was not liable to be even considered by the Board of Directors in view of the fact that his performance was not satisfactory. In the absence of any documents to substantiate such claim and in view of the fact that the claim of the petitioner was not considered at any point of time and no reply was given to him with regard to the claim raised by him, I am of the view that this is a fit case where the petitioner has been wrongly denied of his right to have his claim for promotion considered by the Board of Directors. Since the petitioner had retired from service while holding full additional charge of General Manager (Technical) on 20.2.2011 and since he was never put on notice of any short fall in his performance during the years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner should be granted promotion as General Manager (Technical) notionally with effect from 16.8.2010, the date of which he completed two years of service as Deputy General Manager (Corporate Planning). Since the petitioner was directed by Exhibit P3 order to carry out the

¶58

¶59

WP(C).12754/11

¶60

duties of the General Manager (Technical) as well, he would be entitled to the monetary benefits consequent on such promotion with effect from 16.8.2010 as well as the revision of pensionary benefits. Orders in this regard shall be passed by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the monetary benefits shall be calculated and disbursed to the petitioner within a further period of one month thereafter. The petitioner is at liberty to take up his claim with respect to gratuity before appropriate statutory authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act.

¶61

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶62

ANU SIVARAMAN

¶63

JUDGE

¶64

vgs

T.G.Thulasidas v. Travancore Cochin Chemicals Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.G.Thulasidas v. Travancore Cochin Chemicals Ltd. and Anr.

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

P.U.Joseph Vs State of Kerala and Others

D.Gopakumar Vs Cusat

C.J.George Vs the Kerala Water Authority

Vijayan Nair Vs State of Kerala and Others

Havvaumma K.V. Vs State of Kerala

P.Balarajan Nambiar Vs Union of India