HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ PetitionNo. 4765 of 2006 A.K.Chhibber Vs. Coal India Ltd. & Others Post ofpronouncement ofjudgment and orders on <?3/03/2009 Sd/^1'^ Satish K.Agnihbtri ...Judge -i:^ ,, mGH COURT OF CffilATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WritPetitionNo. 4765 of 2006 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS A.K. Chhibber, aged about 59 years, S/o K.N. Chhibber, House of Late Ms. U. Chhibber, Sr. Advocate 100, Teen Murti Chowk, Sundar Nagar, Raipur(CG)-492013. VERSUS 1. Coal India Ltd. Through its Chairman, 10, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata-700001. 2. South Easter Coalfields Limited, Through its Chairman cum Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur(CG)-495006. 3. Director (Personnel & IR), Coal India Ltd. 10, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata-700001. 4. A.K. Sinha, G.M.( Sales & Marketing) SECL, Bilaspur (CG). 5. B. Subramniyam G.M. (Sales & Marketing), WCL, Nagpur (MS). 6. R.S. Kainth, Regional Sales Manager, Coal India Ltd. Scope Complex New Delhi. (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present : Shri V.G. Tamaskar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.S. Koshy, Advocate for therespondent No. 1 to 3. Shri Abhishek Sinha, Advocate for the respondent No. 4 to 6. ,>3 (Passed on this ^3~day ofMarch, 2009) 1. The petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents authorities to promote the petitioner in executive cadre in E-2 grade with effect from the date, his contemporaries, juniors and less qualified persons have been promoted in 1973- 74, in CMAL scale ofpay with all consequential benefits, further, a direction to give further promotions to the petitioner which have given subsequently to his juniors/contemporaries thereafter; IL1 y 2; Heard Shri V.G. Tamaskar, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri P.S. Koshy, counsel for the respondent No.l to 3 and Shri Abhishek Sinha, counsel for fhe respondent No. 4 to 6. 3. The respondent Coalfields Limited is a subsidiary of Coal India Limited. The petitioner joined the Coalfields as a Chemist on 15.04.1972. At the time of nationalization ofCoalfields i.e. on 31.01.1973 a Govemment Company namely as Coal Mines Authority Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'CMAL') was constituted. The petitioner, at the time of appointment, was kept in non- executive cadre, while according to the petitioner; other similarly situated persons were absorbed in the executive cadre. The non-executive grade staff is graded as Technical & Supervisory Grade-A, T&S-B, T&S-C etc. The executive cadre employees were graded as E-1,E-2,E-3,E-4,E-5, M-1,M-2 and M-3 in the year 1973-75. Some ofChemists, Lab Assistants or Sales Inspectors, working in Sales & Marketing Discipline, inclusive of technical and non- technical disciplines, were appointed as Officers in executive cadre E-2 grade. A.K. Shrivastava (BE), according to petitioner, junior to the petitioner, Shri B.K. Pani (B.Sc.) and Shri A.K. Mitra (Mata-iculate) who were less qualified than the petitioner, were appointed in E-2 grade in CMAL in 1973-74. Several representations were made but the same have not yielded any result. 4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 4087/92 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur raising the same issues and claiming same reliefas raised in the present petition. The High Court ofM.P. at Jabalpur, by order dated 03.05.95 (Annexure P/3), disposed ofthe petition wifh a direction to the respondents authorities to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the rules applicable to the petitioner for future promotions and monetary benefits for which the petitioner was entitled on his placement from 01.05.1973 within a period of 4 months. It was observed that in case, the petitioner was aggrieved by fhe decision on the consideration ofthe petitioner's claim for future promotions, he was granted liberty to take recourse to the proceedings which may be available to him under law. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application, being M.C.C. No. 634/1996 for clarification. The said M.C.C. was disposed of on 11.07.97 (Annexure P/4) as under: "Having heard counsel for the parties, it would be not proper in this petition to make any clarification. However, the respondents were directed in M.P. No. 4087/92 to consider the case of the petitioner in relation to his promotion and benefits, the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law and shall take a final decision on that within a period of three months ftom today. If the petitioner is aggrieved of the decision, he shall be at liberty to take recoiirse to the proceedings in accordance with law." 6. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another writ petition, being W.P. No. 1531/98, seeking appropriate placement w.e.f. 01.05.1973 and further direction to consider his name in the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 03.03.98 and consider the name ofthe petitioner for promotion to the post ofE-2 grade (CMAL). Leamed Single Judge of the High Court, afiter hearing all the parties, wherein, the relief as sought for in this petition, was the same, passed the order on 05.12.2001 (Annexure P/5) as under: "Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed in part. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for Executive Cadre E-2 prior to the position which existed before March, 1978 without written test and for other farther promotions as per mles prevailing time to time when entitlement arose,for which the petitioner was entitled on his placement fi-om 01.05.1973 as Technical & Supervisory Grade-A. The direction be carried out within 3 months from the date ofdecision. Costs on parties" 7. Being aggrieved, the respondent authorities preferred Letters Patent Appeal being LPA No. 17/02. The Division Bench ofthe High Court ofMP, dismissed the appeal on 12.03.2003 (Annexure P/6) in following terms: ('-' "In our considered view the leamed Single Judge rightly allowed the relief to the writ petitioner directmg the appellants to consider the case of writ petitioner for the post of executive cadre E-2 prior to position which existed before March, 1978 without written test and for further promotion as per rules prevailing time to time when according to the entitlement of the writ petitioner on account of his placement fi-om 01.05.1975 as Technical and Supervisory Grade-A. As we are in concurrence with the view expressed by the leamed single Judge we unhesitatingly conclude and hold that this appeal is totally devoid ofany substance and consequently we direct its dismissal without any order as to costs." 8. One more application, being M.C.C. No. 322/2003, was filed against the order dated 12.03.2003 passed in LPA No. 17/02. The leamed Division Bench dismissed the application on 06.05.2003 (Annexure P/7). Thereafter, one more application being M.C.C. No. 3060/2003 (Annexure P/9) for correction of facts was filed by the re.spondents authorities, wherein it was observed that the direction passed by the Single Judge would be given effect to within three weeks from the date of receipt of the order. According to the petitioner, the said direction was not carried on by the respondents authorities. 9. For alleged non-compliance of the order, a Contempt Petition, being No. 282/2003, was filed by the petitioner which was dropped on 10.10.2003 on a statement made by the leamed counsel appearmg for the respondents authorities. Thereafter, second Contempt Petition (Civil) being No. 8/2004 was filed. Leamed Division Bench, after hearing the parties at length, passed the following order on 03.05.2006 (Annexiire P/13) as under: "19. Tested on the anvil and touchstone of the aforesaid judgment, we are of the considered opinion, that the case of the petitioner was considered a&er the LPA was disposed of and he was not found fit but because of observation of this Court made in the proceeding for contempt he was promoted. Hence, we find fhat there is no deliberate violation of the order passed by this Court. If the petitioner has a grievance that he should have been considered the benefits ofpromotion after his right ripened and he has not been properly considered he can file an independent proceeding, if so advised" ^ "hereafter, a Special Leave Petition was moved in the Supreme Court, being SLP(C) No. 9712/2006 by the petitioner. The same was withdrawn on 06.07.2006 (Annexure P/14) in view ofthe observation ofthe High Court giving liberty to the petitioner to move appropriate forum for redressal ofhis grievances in case he is aggrieved by the order which was passed pursuant to the direction given by a single Judge of the High Court, thereafter Division Bench, and in Contempt Petition No. 08/04. The order was passed on 10.01.2005 (Annexure P/12), whereby the petitioner was promoted in E-2 grade. 11. Since the promotion of the petitioner in E-2 grade was without consideration of DPC, it was observed that his case would not be treated as precedent for other cases. 12. The petitioner has filed the present petition on 30.08.2006 wherein the petitioner has raised the similar issues and has claimed the same relief, which was the subject matter in writ petitions Nos. 4087/92, 1531/98, and in the Contempt Petition No. 8/02 in the High Court ofMP. Libertywas granted to the petitioner to take recourse to the proceedings if the petitioner was aggrieved of the decision. Admittedly, pursuant to the directions, order was passed on 10.01.2005 (Aimexure P/12) and in view of the order dated 10.01.2005 the contempt petition was dropped with liberty. The petitioner has not chosen to challenge the order dated 10.01.2005 for which liberty was granted by a Division Bench of the MP High Court while disposing of LPA No. 17/02 and consequently by the Supreme Court in SLP(C) 9712/2006. The petitioner has raised the same grievances which have been subject matter ofthe earlier writ petitions in the High Court ofMP as well as in LPA No. 17/02. Thus, the same cannot be permitted to be re-agitated again when there is no challenge to the order dated 10.01.2005 (Annexure P/12) which was passed pursuant to directions given by the High Court of MP. Thus, this court cannot sit as an Sahu fellate Court over fhe orders passed by the High Court of MP at Jabalpur, to consider the same issues and reliefs which were subject matter earlier. 13.Thus, this petition has no merit and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this petition stands dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/-' -,,:; SatishK.Agnihotrl ..Jydge ;;.-; ^