HI6H COURT QF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR W .P.[s] No.3453 of 2007 PETITIONER Bed Prasad Suryavanshi Vs RESPONDENTS The Chairman cum Managing Director, Head Office, S.E.C.L., Bilaspur <& others POST FOR OR&ER ON 15th JANUARY. 2009 Sd/- Dhirednra Mishr Judge ~> •t*' HI6H COURT OF CHHATTESSARH AT BILASPUR W.P.Fsl No.3453 of 2007 PETETIONER Vs RESPONDENTS Bed Prasad Suryavanshi, Age about 59 years, S/o Late Shri Visahu, R/o Rajeev Vihar, Seepat, Main Road, Bilaspur (C.6.). 1. The Chairman cum Managing birector, Head Office, S.E.C.L., Bilaspur (C6) 2. The Chief General Manager, Personnel and Administration, Head Office, S.E.C.L., Bilaspur (C6) 3. V. Nagesh, S/o V. Ramamurthi, Age about 41 years, R/o : Quarter No.A-159, Vasant Vihar-, Bilaspur (C6). Present; Mr. B.K. Chakraborthy, Advocate for the petitioner. &r. N.K. Shukla, Sr. Advocate with Mrs. Ayetri Sen Supta, Advocate for respondents. O R b ER (PassedoniS:. 1.2009) Dhirendra Mishra. J; 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition praying for" direction to respondents No.l & 2 to prompte the petitioner on the post of Assistant Foreman with effect from the date on which respondent No.3 was given promotion with all consequential benefits. •»-. 2. Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Mechanical Fitter Helper as he had undertaken the course of training at Model Industrial Training Institute, Koni, Bilaspur and passed the test in the trade of fitter (Annexure P-2). The petitioner was transferred from Sura-kachhaar Workshop, Korba to S.E.C.L. Head Quarters, Bilaspur on 22.9.1987 (Annexure P-5). As per promotional channel of E <& M Personnel (Mechanical Fitter) (A'nnexure P-6), the petitioner should have been promoted on the post of Assistant Foreman, however, his trade certificate was unnecessarily asked for and attached with his initial posting though the same was not required. After transfer to S.E.C.L. Headquarters, Bilaspur, the petitioner was assigned the work of Pump Operator. He represented against the same vide representation of Annexure P-8 dated 5.1.1988. / ^l^. "^. &v--:sa. ^8 'K^ Thereafter, he again submitted his representations in the year 2006-07 vide Annexure P-9, P-10, P-11, P-13 <& P-14, however, the same were not considered. He Served the respondents No.l & 2 a legal notice dated 12.3.2007 (Annexure P-15) for consideration of his case for promotion. He also submitted application (Annexure P-16) before the Central Labour Commissioner, Bilaspur for redressal of his grievance but even after 31 years, he was not given promotion. 3. Respondents No.l <& 2 in their return to the petition have averred that the petitioner was appointed as Seneral Mazdoor Category-1 on 9.2.1976, he was subsequently promoted to the post of Mechanical Fitter Helper Category-2 w.e.f. 1.2.1979. Later on, he was transferred to S.E.C.L. Headquarters, Bilaspur in the year 1987 on his own request and since then he is working in the T.A. Department as Pump Operator. Whereas, respondent No.3 was appointed as Seneral Mazdoor Category-I on 14.1.1987. He was promoted as Pipe Fitter Category-2 in the year 1988 and again promoted to Category-4 on 1.2.1990 and thereafter to Category-5 on 11.1.1993. In the year 1999 cadre of respondent No.3 was changed from Pipe Operator to Mechanical Fitter Category-5 and ultimately he was promoted on the post of Assistant Foreman (Mechanical) on 13.3.2006. The petitioner was also promoted on the post of Pump Operator Category-4 and thereafter he was advised to appear before the &epartmental Promotion Committee. The petitioner while posted as Pump Operator in the S.E.C.L. Headquarter was promoted to Category 3 <& 4. He never requested for assignment of work in accordance with his trade certificate. His request for promotion to the post of Assistant Foreman could not be considered because as per cadre scheme for promotion to the post of Foreman (Mechanical) requisite experience of Category 4, 5 <S 6 and /\ssistant Foreman, along with eligibility <& clearance from the DPC is necessary. The petitioner was also afforded two opportunities to appear before the bepartmental Promotion Committee for pr-omotion to Pump Operator Category-5, however, he expressed his unwillingness in participating in DPC and therefore, his case for promotion could not be considered. ?'..'.'-TI,. :^ ^^/./ :L"^^'-/ ./L tsSsaaf 4. Respondent No.3 in his separate return has stated that he had successfully completed the trade test and possesses National Trade Certificate. He was promoted to various categories through proper promotional channel as he fulfilled all the conditions precedent for being promoted to the post of Assistant Foreman and the petitioner has made false accusation that his National Trade Cer-tificate (R3-1) is not authentic. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner was appointed as Mechanical Fitter Helper on the basis of trade certificate in fitter trade, however, he was transferred to S.E.C.L. Headquarter, Bilaspur and posted as Pump Operator. His case for promotion in his trade (Mechanical) was not considered, whereas, respondent No.3, who does not possess National Trade Certificate, was given various promotions in a short span and now he has been promoted as Assistant Foreman. The petitioner being his senior was entitled for promotion w.e.f. 1987 when respondent No.3 was promoted. 6. On the other hand, Dr. Shukla, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents contended that the petitioner was transferred as Pump Operator to S.E.C.L. Headquarter, Bilaspur on his own request. H^ was given promotion as Pump Operator Category-3 <& 4 as per cadre scheme. He never applied for posting in his mechanical trade. 1-fe was advised to participate in the t)PC for promotion to Pump Operator Category-5, however, he declined toparticipatein the DPC for promotion, whereas, experience of Category 5 -S-: <& 6 is necessary for promotion to the post of Assistant Foreman. Since the petitioner was not promoted to above categories as he continued to work as Pump Operator in the S.E.C.L. Headquarters, his case for promotion on the post of Assistant Foreman could not be considered. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I have perused the documents filed by the petitioner as also by the respondents. 8. firievance of the petitioner dates back to the year 1987 when he was transferred to S.E.C.L. Headquarters, Bilaspur from Sura-Kachhaar, Korba and posted as Pump Operator. He continued to discharge the duty as Pump Operator from 1988 to 27.3.2006 without anyobjection, as he submitted his representations for promotion from Pump Operator to Mechanical £.,.^: ^ <f Roshan/- Fitter on 27.3.2006 after 1988. From the documents of Annexure P-17 it appears that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Pump Operator Category 3 <& 4, he accepted the promotion without any objection. He was advised to participate in the DPC for promotion to the post of Pump Operator Category-5, however, he declined to participate in the DPC. Thus, considering the inordinate delay of 20 years in filing the instant petition and further considering the overall conduct of the petitioner in this long period that he accepted the promotion on the post of Category-3 <& 4 while serving as Pump Operator in the S.E.C.L. Headquarters, the instant petition for consideration of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Assistant Foreman cannot be entertained as the same is not maintainable on the ground of delay, laches and acquiescence. 9. In the result, the petition has not substance, the same deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed at the admission stage itself. No order as to costs. Sd/- Dhirednra Mishra Judge