IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.66 of 2006 (S/B) Dinesh Verma Officer Law (P&A) / Services Deptt. … Petitioner Versus Union of India and others …. Respondents Dated :- 04th August, 2010 Coram: Hon. Tarun Agarwala, J. Hon. Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. (Oral) Heard Sri Dinesh Verma, the petitioner in person and Mr. U. K. Uniyal, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Shobhit Saharia, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 4. 2. The Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Ltd. issued an advertisement No.1/1995 inviting application for various posts. The petitioner applied for the post of Junior Executive (Law) and subsequently, was appointed on 11th July, 1997 as a Junior Executive (Law). After three years, the petitioner was promoted in E-1 grade in the D.P.C. of 2000 and after another three years, was promoted in the grade of E-2 in the D.P.C. of 2003. The petitioner made various representations to the authority alleging therein that based on the promotional policy issued by the respondents, he was liable to be promoted in E-1 grade w.e.f. 01.04.1998, i.e., after one year of his service from the date of his initial appointment and that he was liable to be promoted in E-2 grade w.e.f. 01.04.2001 and in E3 grade w.e.f. 01.04.2004. When his representations fell on deaf ears and no action was taken, the petitioner filed the present writ petition in the year 2006 praying that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to promote the petitioner in E-1 grade w.e.f. 01.04.1998, in E-2 grade w.e.f. 01.04.2001 and in E-3 grade w.e.f. 01.04.2004 and that financial benefits in the aforesaid grades also be given. 3. The petitioner contended that based on the promotional policy, he was liable to be promoted in E-1 grade after one year of his service and that the respondents, instead of promoting him after one year, had promoted the petitioner arbitrarily in the year 2000. The petitioner further contended that the juniors to the petitioner, who were in the Supervisory grade S-4, were promoted earlier and the petitioner was not promoted and, consequently, the petitioner became junior to them. In support of his submission, the petitioner placed reliance upon the promotional policies dated 16th March, 1994, 15th January, 1996, 10th January, 2002 and 30th March, 2007. 4. In order to appreciate the submission of the petitioner, it would be essential to consider the promotional policy framed by the respondents under the promotional policy dated 16th March, 1994. We find from the aforesaid policy that the ladder of promotion is from W-1 to W-11 i.e. from an unskilled workmen to a skilled workmen and, thereafter, the promotion is from S-1 to S-4, which is a Supervisor grade. The essential qualification for promotion is three years for a Graduate Engineer and others with recognized professional qualification and four years for others. The promotional policy was amended by an order dated 15th January, 1996 3 w.e.f. 01.07.1994. The provisions of 1(b) of the said promotional policy stipulated the following:- “(b) Supervisors S-1 to S-2 3 years S-2 to S-3 3 years S-3 to S-4 3 years In respect of employees who acquire AMIE qualification will be considered for promotion from S-4 grade to E-1 grade after 1 year service instead of 3 years as at present.” 5. Under the aforesaid clause, a person in S-3 grade could be promoted to S-4 grade after completion of three years and in respect of employee, who acquire AMIE qualification, will be considered for promotion from S-4 grade to E-1 grade after one year of service instead of three years. The promotional policy was again amended on 30th March, 2007, which stipulated that on completion of one year of service, a Supervisor, who possesses the minimum qualification, would be considered for promotion from S-4 grade to the Executive cadre subject to qualifying the written test and interview. 6. In the light of the aforesaid, the petitioner contended that he holds a professional qualification, namely, a law degree, which is equivalent to AMIE qualification and, therefore, under the promotional policy dated 15th January, 1996, being a Junior Executive, which is equivalent to S-4 grade, he was liable to be promoted to E-1 grade after one year of service. The same policy of promotion after one year was reiterated by the respondents in their policy dated 30th March, 2007. 4 7. Having considered the submission of the petitioner, the court finds that the submission is not tenable nor can it be accepted. Even though, the pay scale of a Junior Executive and the pay scale of a Supervisor in S-4 grade is the same, the benefit given to a Supervisor in S-4 grade could not be passed on to a Junior Executive. A perusal of the promotional policy indicates that the Supervisor grade is from S-1 to S-4 which is a promotional channel, whereas, the petitioner has been appointed on a direct recruit post as a Junior Executive (law). The channel of promotion as stipulated in the promotional policy dated 16th March, 1994 under clause 1.7 thereof is, that the employee must work as a Junior Executive for three years before he could be promoted to E-1 which has remained unchanged and has never been amended. The promotional policy for a Supervisor grade was amended on 15th January, 1996, which contemplated that a Supervisor in S-4 grade could be promoted to E-1 grade provided he possesses AMIE qualification. The petitioner is not a Supervisor in S-4 grade, but, is a Junior Executive and, consequently, the policy dated 15th January, 1996 in so far as it relates to a Supervisor is not applicable to the petitioner’s case. Similarly, the promotion policy dated 30th March, 2007 is not applicable to the petitioner since it is only confined to the Supervisor grade. Further, the said policy dated 30th March, 2007 is effective from 2007 onwards and it has no retrospective effect. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the contention of the petitioner that he is liable to be promoted in E-1 grade after one year of service is patently erroneous. The petitioner is not entitled for any relief. We do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 04.08.2010 LSR