IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 31ST AUGUST 2010 / 9TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 15014 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. V.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, SENIOR PROCESS OPERATOR,AMMONIA COMPLEX, UDYOGAMANDAL DIVISION,F A C T. 2. N.VISWANATHAN NAIR, SENIOR PROCESS OPERATOR,AMMONIA COMPLEX, UDYOGAMANDAL DIVISION,F A C T. 3. M.JAI SANKAR, SENIOR PROCESS OPERATOR,AMMONIA COMPLEX, UDYOGAMANDAL DIVISION,F A C T. 4. JOLLY MAMPILLY, SENIOR PROCESS OPERATOR,AMMONIA COMPLEX, UDYOGAMANDAL DIVISION,F A C T. 5. MOHAN POTTY, SENIOR PROCESS OPERATOR,NEW SULPHATE PLANT, UDYOGAMANDAL DIVISION,F A C T. 6. ABRAHAM.V.SAMUVEL, SENIOR PROCESS OPERATOR,AMMONIA COMPLEX, UDYOGAMANDAL DIVISION,F A C T. 7. K.V.BENNY, SENIOR PROCESS OPERATOR,AMMONIA COMPLEX, UDYOGAMANDAL DIVISION,F A C T. 8. BOBY.J.MATHEW, SENIOR PROCESS OPERATOR,AMMONIA COMPLEX, UDYOGAMANDAL DIVISION,F A C T. 9. M.R.VIJAYACHANDRAN, SENIOR PROCESS OPERATOR,AMMONIA COMPLEX, UDYOGAMANDAL DIVISION,F A C T. 10. V.S.JOHN, SENIOR PROCESS OPERATOR,AMMONIA COMPLEX, UDYOGAMANDAL DIVISION,F A C T. 11. GEORGE THOMAS, SENIOR PROCESS OPERATOR,PHOSPHATE DEPARTMENT, UDYOGAMANDAL DIVISION,F A C T. 12. B.MOHANA CHANDRAN, SENIOR PROCESS OPERATOR,PROCESS DEPARTMENT, UDYOGAMANDAL PRODUCTION UNIT. 13. SIJI JOSEPH, SENIOR PROCESS OPERATOR,ACID PLANT, UDYOGAMANDAL DIVISION,F A C T. 14. SAMBU NAMBOOTHIRI.S.N., SENIOR PROCESS OPERATOR,AMMONIA COMPLEX, UDYOGAMANDAL DIVISION,F A C T. 15. RAJEEV, SENIOR PROCESS OPERATOR,NEW AMMONIA SULPHATE, UDYOGAMANDAL PRODUCTION UNIT. 16. A.A.JOSHY, SENIOR PROCESS OPERATOR,AMMONIA COMPLEX, UDYOGAMANDAL DIVISION,F A C T. 17. D.JAYAKUMAR, SENIOR PROCESS OPERATOR,AMMONIA COMPLEX, UDYOGAMANDAL DIVISION,F A C T. 18. JOJY JOSEPH CHENNATTUSSERY, SENIOR PROCESS OPERATOR,PHOSPHATE DEPT., UDYOGAMANDAL DIVISION,F A C T. 19. GOPALAKRISHNAN UNNITHAN.S., SENIOR PROCESS OPERATOR,PHOSPHATE DEPT., UDYOGAMANDAL DIVISION,F A C T. 20. ANIL KUMAR.E.N., SENIOR PROCESS OPERATOR,AMMONIA COMPLEX, UDYOGAMANDAL DIVISION,F A C T. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M/S FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD.,UDYOGAMANDAL,REP.BY THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,FACT,UDYOGAMANDAL,ERNAKULAM. 2. GENERAL MANAGER, (HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT), FACT LTD.,UDYOGAMANDAL POST,ERNAKULAM. 3. ASST.MANAGER (PRODUCTION), ACID PLANT,FACT LTD.,UDYOGAMANDAL. ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R1, 2 and 3 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX EXT.P1-TRUE COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED IN WPC 19774/06 EXT.P2-TRUE COPY OF THE RODER OF PROMOTION DT.8.5.08 OF FIRST PETITIONR EXT.P3 AND P3(A)-TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.20.6.2008 EXT.P4-TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.12.12.08 GIVEN TO R1 RESPONDENTS' EXTS: EXT.R2(A)-TRUE COPY OF SERVICE DETAILS OF THE PETITIONERS. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 15014 of 2009-V - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 31st day of August, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioners herein are Senior Process Operators in various process plants of Production Department of the first respondent company at Udyogamandal. The grievance raised by the petitioners is regarding the non granting of promotion for a long number of years and when the promotion was granted ultimately, according to them, they were denied various benefits also. Actually, the petitioners were promoted as Senior Process Operators in the year 2008. 2. It is pointed out in the writ petition that between 2002-2004 there arose about 38 vacancies in Layer I, to which the petitioners and their seniors could have been promoted. It appears that various representations were filed in the matter by the seniors of the petitioners also. It is further pointed out that the seniors of the petitioners filed W.P.(C) No.19774/2006 which was disposed of by judgment dated 20.10.2009. Pending the said writ petition, the seniors of the petitioners were promoted and consequently the petitioners were also promoted by Ext.P2 proceedings. 3. Mainly, the complaint raised is that the petitioners could not get wpc 15014/2009 2 the promotion in time since the posts were occupied by deputationists also. According to them, this was irregular when qualified hands were available for promotion. In grounds 'D' and 'E', these contentions have been raised by the petitioners. The main prayer in the writ petition is to direct respondents 1 and 2 to issue orders cancelling the existing deputations to the Process Department and also to promote the petitioners to the post of Senior Process Operators on a retrospective basis based on the respective dates of occurrence of vacancies. 4. The management has filed a counter affidavit explaining the requirement for filling up the post by deputation. It is explained that because of the adverse financial position, they had to take various measures to streamline the affairs and in the light of the various fiscal and austerity measures implemented by them, a ban order was also in force and no Layer I promotions were effected. It is further pointed out that there were excess of Layer I officers in the Chemical Control Department while there was shortage of Layer I officers in the Production Department and in view of the ban on promotions, it was decided to utilise the surplus officers in the Chemical Control Department in the Production Department to meet the shortage in Layer I in the Production Department. Accordingly, orders were issued for deputation of certain officers into the said department. wpc 15014/2009 3 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the management. Learned counsel for the petitioners made available for perusal the judgment in W.P.(C) No.19774/2006 filed by the seniors of the petitioners. Admittedly, they have been promoted to the post of Production Engineers and in the consequent vacancies, the petitioners have also been promoted. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners for any retrospective benefit depends upon the fate of the seniors and the promotions could have been made only on the actual dates of occurrence of vacancies. Two aspects stood in the way of promoting the petitioners, viz. the non promotion of the seniors and the filling up of certain vacancies by deputation. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even going by para 8 of the counter affidavit, the management has made clear that the deputations were made only as a temporary measure and without affecting the seniority and they cannot have any grievance in this regard. 6. Presently, it is pointed out that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No.19774/2006, by allowing the petitioners therein to file appropriate representation with regard to the claim for giving notional benefits on a retrospective basis, the management has granted benefits by way of certain grades to them. It is pointed out that the petitioners are entitled to get similar benefits. wpc 15014/2009 4 7. Evidently, in the above judgment, this Court in para 3, held as follows: “I feel that the entitlement of the petitioners to get promotion with retrospective effect is a matter which has to be considered, at the first instance, by the first respondent and that it is only proper that at the time of such consideration, due weight is given to the contention that persons in other departments were granted promotion with retrospective effect with notional benefits, after the lifting of the ban on promotions.” Accordingly, the petitioners therein were directed to submit a representation before the fist respondent expatiating their grievances on the subject, within a period of three weeks from the date of judgment. Even though it is asserted that the petitioners in the said writ petition were granted certain benefits, those proceedings are not available in the pleadings. Therefore, it is not proper for me to straight away grant the benefits sought for on a retrospective basis, to the petitioners herein. It is up to the petitioners to file appropriate representation before the Management claiming benefits for the alleged denial of promotion and if such representations are filed and if seniors to the petitioners were granted any notional benefits, the entitlement of the petitioners for grant of the same or similar benefits will be considered by the management. If the petitioners file appropriate wpc 15014/2009 5 representation along with a copy of this judgment within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the management will consider the same in accordance with law, within a further period of two months and communicate the decision to the petitioners. It is submitted that already the petitioners are entitled to get E2 grade and the benefits arising therefrom. This is a matter to be considered by the management. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/